
CIass_ 

Book Xg 



/ 



TRACTS 



a3 / 



UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY* 



PUBLISHED IN 1815 VIZ. 



American Unitarianism. 
Panoplist Review of do. 
Channing's Letter to Thacher. 
Worcester's First Letter. 
Channing's Remarks on do. 



Worcester's Second Letter. 
Channing's Remarks on do. 
Worcester's Third Letter. 
Layman's do. 



TO WHICH IS ADDED, 

THE LAYMAN'S INQUIRY INTO THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE ECCLESI- 
ASTICAL CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 



BOSTON : 
60T.D BY WELLS AND LILLY, NO. 97 COURTSTItERT. 

1816. 



XI 



AMERICAN UNITARIANISM; 

OR A 

BRIEF HISTORY 

OF 

* THE PROGRESS AND PRESENT STATE OF THE 

UNITARIAN CHURCHES 

IN AMERICA." 

Compiled, from Documents and Information communicated by 
the Rev. James Freeman, D. D. and William Wells 
\n. Esq. of Boston, and from other Unitarian 



Gentlemen in this Country, 



BY REV. THOMAS BELSHAM, 

ESSEJC-STREKT, LONDON. 



Extracted from his " Memoirs of the Life of the Reverend TiiKOP«itU6 

Lindsey," printed in London, 1812, and now published for the 

benefit of the Christian Churches in this country, 

without note or alteration. 



FIFTH EDITION. 



BOSTON: 

PRINTED BY NATHANIEL WILLIS. 

HO. T5, STATE-STREET. 

1815. 



PREFACE. 

WHEN" such radical and essential changes take 
place in the religion of a country, as have been wit- 
nessed in some parts of New-England, particularly 
in Boston and in the region round about it, during 
the last thirty years, it is gratifying to inquiring 
minds to know, from correct and undisputed sources 
and documents, in what manner and by what steps 
such changes have been effected. The Publishers of 
this pamphlet are happy that they have it in their 
power to satisfy the inquisitive on this subject. The 
information desired will be found in the following 
pages. 

It is proper in this place to admonish the reader^ 
that it is not our object to decide the great question, 
which has the preference, the old faith of the fathers 
of New -England, which Unitarians (to give them 
their own title) reject as irrational and unscriptural, 
or that which they have desired, under the idea of a 
reform, to introduce in its place. On this question. 
every one in this land of freedom of opinion, and of 
abundant means of information, must judge for him- 
self. To his own Master each must stand or fall* 
We mean here to offer no opinion of our own ; to 
troduce nothing of controversy ; but merely to give a 
plain history of very important facts, derived from 
unquestionable sources, disclosing the instruments and 
operations by which these great and visible changes 
in the religious faith of so many of our Clergy, of the 
Churches, and of the University in this part of New- 



j£ngland, have been accomplished. This publica- 
tion seems now to be required, and even necessary f 
because those who have been chiefly concerned m 
conducting these operation's, have deemed it expedi- 
ent, till this stage of their process, to conceal from 
the mass of the Christian community their ultimate 
designs. The history, therefore, which we now lay 
before the public, in its most material parts, will be 
new to most of its readers, and, as we believe, inter- 
esting to all. Though this history is now before the 
public, we are not quite certain that all the advocates 
of the changes in the religion of our country which it 
relates, are agreed as to the expediency and seasona- 
bleuess of the present disclosure, or are disposed to 
commend Mr. Belsham for making it, in the manner 
he has done, on the other side of the Atlantic. 
The care which has been manifested to limit the 
knowledge of this interesting work, during many 
months, (probably two years) since its arrival in Bos- 
ton, indicates pretty plainly the unwillingness of those 
who have possessed copies of it, to have its contents 
generally known. On this subject, however, we 
would not be positive. Appearances may have de- 
ceived us. The gentlemen who received this work 
from its Author, may have had other and very satis- 
factory reasons for this apparent concealment of it 
for so long a period. If so, we may, and we hope 
we shall, receive their thanks, and the thanks also of 
other American Unitarians, for bringing before the 
public their own history, in so unexceptionable a 
form, from the pen of a man, considered deservedly as 
standing at the head of their denomination, who de- 
rived his facts and information confessedly from gen- 
tlemen in this country, who were best acquainted witk 



the subject ; who have been principals in the history 
which they narrate ; and who, moreover, wrote evi- 
dently not for the public eye, but only for the infor- 
mation of private, confidential friends, and of course 
what they conceived to be naked and undisguised 
truth. Rarely indeed has the Christian public been 
favoured with a portion of history, which has had as 
high claims to attention and credit, for the reasons a- 
bove stated, as that which is contained in the follow, 
ing pages. We may, therefore, without presumption, 
anticipate the pleasure we shall afford to all denomi- 
nations of Christians, by giving them, in a cheap 
form, this very interesting portion of ecclesiastical 
history. 

We have another reason for making this publica- 
tion. Many complaints have been made that the 
Boston Clergy have been " slanderously reported" 
to be Unitarians. This pamphlet will shew Who 
are their " slanderers," if indeed they are entitled to 
this character, and exculpate some who have been 
falsely accused in this thing.* 

To evince the impartiality of Mr. Belsham, as re- 
spects the body of Christians in this country, whose 
history he has written, and to shew that his testimony 
concerning them is entitled to full confidence, his re- 
ligious creed, (for English Unitarians have creeds, 
and long ones too, though their American brethren 
profess to have none) and from his own pen, is sub- 
joined, and is as follows : — 

" I shall now proceed to exhibit a concise view of Rational 
Christianity in its connexion with Natural Religion. 

" Of Rational Religion, the first and fundamental principle 
Js, that the Maker of the universe is infinitely powerful, wise. 

• See pages 38, 41, and 44, of this pamphlet. 



6 

and good, and that it is impossible for him to act in contradic- 
tion to his essential attributes. 

" God is love. Infinite benevolence alone prompted him to 
actiou. And infinite benevolence, combined with unerring wis- 
dom, and supported by irresistible power, will infallibly accom^ 
pli-«h its purpose iu the best possible manuer. It appears in 
fact, that a limited quantity of evil, both natural and moral, 
was necessary to the production of the greatest possible good. 
Whence this necessity arises, we know not ; but that it could 
not be avoided iu a system upon the whole the best, we are well 
assured; for God would not choose evil for its own sake. Evil 
therefore is introduced and permitted, not because it is approv- 
ed, but because it is unavoidable. It is in its own nature tempo- 
rary and self-destructive ; and in the view of the Deity it is ab- 
sorbed and lost in the contemplation of its ultimate beneficial 
effects, so that to him the whole system appears wise, beautiful 
and good. 

" God is the Former, the Father, and Benefactor of the hu- 
man race, whom for wise reasons, unknown to us, but perfectly 
consistent, no doubt, with his magnificent plan of universal or- 
der and happiness, he has been pleased to place in circumstan- 
ces of frailty and danger, the natural consequence of which, in 
their progress through life, is the contraction of a certain de- 
gree of moral pollution, which, in the nature of things, and by 
the divine appointment, exposes them to a proportionate de- 
gree of misery here or hereafter. 

" But this fact by no means proves a preponderance of vice 
and misery in the world; otherwise we must conclude that the 
Maker of the world, whose character we learn only from his 
works, is a weak or a malignant being. The truth is, that al- 
though the quantity of vice and misery actually existing is very 
considerable, there is nevertheless, upon the whole, a very great 
preponderance of good in general, and, with few, if any excep- 
tions, in every individual in particular. 

" The almost universal desire of life and dread of dissolution, 
amounts to a strong presumption, that life is in general a bles- 
sing. And the disgrace universally attached to flagrant vice, 
proves that such vice is not common. Character is the sum to- 
tal of moral and intellectual habits, and the proportion of vir- 



tuous habits, in the worst characters, exceeds that of vicious 
ones. But no character takes the denomination of virtuous 
unless all the habits are on the side of virtue : whereas one 
evil habit is sufficient to stamp a character vicious. 

"God cannot be unjust to any of his creatures. Having 
brought men into existence and placed them in circumstances of 
imminent peril, though in the nature of things misery is neces- 
sarily connected with vice, we may certainly conclude that 
none of the creatures of God in such, or in any circumstances, 
will ever be made eternally miserable. Indeed it is plainly re- 
pugnant to the justice of God, that the existence to any of his 
intelligent creatures, should be upon the whole a curse. 

"The light of philosophy affords a few plausible arguments 
for the doctrine of a future life : there are some appearances 
physical and moral, which cannot be satisfactorily explained 
upon any other supposition. But since the sentient powers are 
suspended by death, and admit of no revival but by the revival 
of the man, a fact the expectation of which is entirely unsup- 
ported both by experience and analogy, the speculations of phi- 
losophy would commonly, and almost necessarily, terminate in 
the disbelief of a future existence. 

" Here divine revelation offers its seasonable and welcome 
aid. God has commissioned his faithful and holy servant^ 
Jesus of Nazareth, to teach the universal resurrection of the 
dead, and by his own resurrection to confirm and exemplify 
his doctrine. 

" Jesus hath authoritatively taught, that the wicked will be 
raised to suffering; nor could it possibly be otherwise, if they 
are to be raised with the same system of habits and feelings 
with which they descended to the grave, and without which 
their identity would be lost. But since eternal misery for tem- 
porary crimes is inconsistent with every principle of justice, 
and since a resurrection from previous insensibility to indefinite 
misery, to be succeeded by absolute annihilation, is a harsh 
supposition, contrary to all analogy, and not to be admitted but 
upon the clearest evidence, we are naturally led to conclude, 
that the sufferings of the wicked will be remedial, and that they 
will terminate in a complete purification from moral disorder, 
find in their ultimate restoration to virtue and happiness. In 



8 

this conclusion we seem to be justified by those passages in the 
apostolical writings which declare, that the blessings of the 
gospel shall be far more extensive than the calamities of the 
fall, and that Christ shall reign till all things shall be subdu- 
ed unto him. (Rom. v. — 1 Cor. xv.) 

" The apostles were commanded to preach the gospel to the 
idolatrous heathen as well as to the chosen family of Abraham, 
and they were authorized to confirm their doctrine by miracles. 
These extraordinary powers are in the Scriptures called the 
Spirit of God, and the Holy Spirit ; and the great change 
which took place in the views, feelings, and character of pha- 
risaic Jews and idolatrous heathen, when they sincerely pro- 
fessed the Christian faith, is called, a new creation, regenera- 
tion, rising from the dead, and the like. And as conversion to- 
Christianity was usually produced by the evidence of miracles, 
this new creation, regeneration, sanctification, or passing from 
death to life, is in this sense ascribed to the Spirit of God. 

" The Jews, having been chosen by God to peculiar privile- 
ges, entertained a very high notion of their own dignity, and 
expressed themselves in the most contemptuous language of the 
idolatrous gentiles, who were not in covenant with Jehovah. 
Of themselves they spoke as a chosen and a holy nation, sons 
of God, and heirs of the promises. But the heathens were re- 
presented as sinners, as aliens, as enemies to God, and the like. 
In allusion to which forms of expression, the converted gentiles 
being entitled equally with converted Jews, to the blessings of 
the new dispensation, they are therefore said to be forgiven, 
reconciled, and saved, to he fellow-citizens with the saints, and 
of the household of God. 

" The death of Jesus is sometimes called & propitiation, be- 
cause it put an end to the Mosaic economy, and introduced a 
new and more liberal dispensation, under which the gentiles, 
who were before regarded as enemies, are admitted into a state 
of amity and reconciliation ; that is, into a state of privilege 
similar to that of the Jews. It is also occasionally called a 
sacrifice, being the ratification of that new covenant into which 
God is pleased to enter with his human offspring, by which a 
resurrection to immortal life and happiness is promised, without 
distinction, to all who are truly virtuous. Believers in Christ 



Vffe also said to have redemption through his blood, because ihe^ 
&re released by the Christian covenant from the yoke of the 
ceremonial law, and from the bondage of idolatry. Dr. Taylor 
has in general vyell explained these Jewish phrases in his ad- 
mirable Key to the apostolic writings, prefixed to his Com* 
mentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 

" The Scriptures contain a faithful and credible account of 
the Christian doctrine, which is the true word of God: but 
they are not themselves the word of God, nor do they ever as- 
sume that title : and it is highly improper to speak of them as 
such, as it leads inattentive readers to suppose they were writ* 
ten under a plenary inspiration, to which they make no preten- 
sion, and as snch expressions expose Christianity unnecessarily 
to the cavils of unbelievers. 

" Christianity sums up the whole of human duty in the love 
of God and our neighbour ; and requiring that all our time 
should be employed to the best account, and that every action 
,should be consecrated to God, lays no stress upon ritual obser- 
vations, and expressly abolishes that distinction of days, which, 
formed so conspicuous a feature in the Mosaic institute. To a 
true Christian every day is a Sabbath, every place is a temple, 
and every action of life an act of devotion. A Christian is not 
required to be more holy, nor permitted to take greater liberties 
upon one day than upon auother. Whatever is lawful or ex- 
pedient upon one day of the week is, under the Christian dis- 
pensation, equally lawful and expedient ou any other day. 
Public worship, however, must be conducted at slated intervals ; 
and it has been usual from the earliest times for Christians to 
assemble together, on the first day of the week, to commemorate 
the death and to celebrate the resurrection of their Master. 

" This appears to me to be the true doctrine of reason and 
revelation, in which the God of nature is not represented as 
frowning over his works, and like a merciless tyrant dooming 
his helpless creatures to eternal misery, with the arbitrary ex- 
ception of a chosen few 3 but as the wise, benevolent, and impar- 
tial parent of his rational offspring, who is training them all) 
under various processes of intellectual and moral discipline, to 
perfect virtue and everlasting felicity. Such is the God of my 
faith and adoration, the God of nature and of revelation, the 



10 

God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that God whose ex- 
istence, attributes, and government are the joy and confidence 
of every enlightened and virtuous believer.*-* 

" Jesus is indeed now alive. But as we are totally ignorant 
of the place where he resides, and of the occupations in which 
lie is engaged, there can be no proper foundation fur religious 
addresses to him, nor of gratitude for favors now received, nor 
yet of confidence in his future interposition in our behalf."! 

MR. LIXDSEY'S CREED. 

<< There is Oxe God, one single person who is God, the 
sole Creator and Sovereign Lord of all things. 

"The holy Jesus was a man of the Jewish nation, the ser- 
vant of this God, highly honoured and distinguished by him. 

" The Spirit, or Holy Spirit, was not a person or intelligent 
being, but only the extraordinary power or gift of God, first to 
our Lord Jesus Christ himself in his life time, and afterwards 
to the Apostles and many of the first Christians, to impower 
them to preach and propagate the Gospel with suecess." { 

The above Creeds are strictly Unitarian ; or more properly 
what divines in this country would denominate Socinian. They 
do not embrace the Arian idea of the pre-existence of Christ's 
human soul, or that he originally possessed a super-angelic na- 
ture ; or that his suSerings and death were in any sense to be 
considered as propitiatory, or that divine honours were due to 
him. The English Unitarians reject these opinions as absurd, 
and maintain the simple humanity of Jesus. § . Of this charac- 
ter is the Unitarianism, the history of whose progress in this 
country is given in the following pages. 
April 3d, 15 13. 

* See Bclsliam's Review of Wilberfbrce's Treatise, Letter II. 
f Sec Letter VIII. in the Forementioned work. 
$ See Memoirs of Lindsey, p. 212- 

§ Sec Dr. Lardner's opinion on this subject, as quoted hy Mr. Belsliam 
'Life of Lindsey) p. 212—220, note. 



AMERICAN UN1TARIANISM, &c. 



Unitarian Liturgy adopted by the Congregation at 
the ICing's Chapel at Boston, in JSTew -England. 

•Mr. Lindsey corresponds with Dr. Freeman, Mr. 
Vanderlcemp, §c. Progress and present state of 
the Unitarian Churches in America. 



THE grand theological controversies which ex- 
cited so much attention, and were conducted with so 
much animosity, in England, could not fail to attract 
notice in America, and especially in the New-Eng- 
land States, where a manliness of character, a decen- 
cy of morals, and a serious though not universally 
enlightened spirit of piety, dispose iho. minds of con- 
siderable numbers to religious enquiries, and where 
freedom of investigation suffers no restraint from the 
civil power. It was with great pleasure that Mr. 
Lindsey received information in the year \JH§, from 
a respectable correspondent, (the Rev. I. Smith, af- 
terwards Librarian to the University of Cambridge, in 
N.England,) that the principal Episcopalian Church 
iu Boston had consented to the introduction of a Li 
turgy reformed nearly upon the plan of that which 
had been adopted in Essex-Street and perfectly Uni- 
tarian.* The Minister of this congregation, which 

* In Mr. Freeman's first letter to Mr. Lindsey, dated July y, 
17S6, lie U'lls his venerable correspondent, "The Liturgy of 
our church was during a long time unpopular. But your ap- 
probation, the note of Or. Price annexed to a letter of Dr. Lush, 
and the mention which Dr. Priestley is pleased to make of it 
in his sermon upon the fifth of November, have raised it in es- 
teem. It now seems to be acknowledged that that book cannot 
be very absurd which is praised by men of such great learning 
and abilities, and who have been so long known and so justly 
admired in this country. 1 wish the work was more worthy oi 
your approbation. I can only say that I endeavoured to make 
it so by attempting to introduce your Liturgy entire. But the 
people of the Chapel were not ripe for so great a change. S 



12 

assembled a( what was called the King's Chapel, was 
the Rev. James Freeniau, and is described by his 
friend as " a vouus; man of a ere at deal of knowledge 
and good sense, and of an excellent disposition-" 
Some of his hearers left him on account of the change 
introduced into the service ; hut the majority adhered 
to him, and the congregation flourished under him. 
He was for some time under considerable embarrass- 

defects and improprieties I was under the necessity of retain- 
ing, for the sake of inducing them to omit the most exceptiona- 
ble parts of the old service, the Athanasian prayers. Perhaps 
in some future day, when their minds become more enlightened 
they may consent to a further alteration." 

The writer of this memoir is happy to add, that the day of 
increased light and liberality, predicted by this enlightened re- 
former, is now arrived, and that Dr. Freeman has himself lived 
to see his own prediction verified. In a new edition of the 
Boston Liturgy, printed in the year 1811, a copy of which the 
writer has had the honour to receive as a present fro^p the 
Ministers, Wardens, and Y r estry of the King's Chapel, nothing 
is to be found which is inconsistent with the purest principles 
of Unitarian worship as such, and with a very few alterations, 
chiefly verbal, it might be made perfectly unobjectionable. 
May it long be the efficacious means of supporting the purity 
and simplicity of Christian worship, and diffusing a spirit of 
rational piety ! 

Tvlr. Freeman further proceeds to state the progress which 
Unitarian principles were making in the United States, and 
particularly in New-England. This he imputes to the many 
excellent books published in England, and to Mr. Lindsey's 
Works in particular, which were much read and with great ef- 
fect. The sermons and conversation of some Clergymen in 
New-England al«o contributed their share : and amongst these 
lie mentions the Rev. Mr. Hazlitt, a pious, zealous and intelli- 
gent English minister, who since his return to England is set- 
tled at Wem in Shropshire. Mr. Freeman speaks of himself 
as particularly indebted to the instructions and conversation of 
this respectable person. " I bless the day,*' says he, " when 
that honest man first landed in this country." In another let- 
ter dated June, 1789, Mr. Freeman writes,' "Before Mr. Haz- 
litt came to Boston, the Trinitarian doxology was almost uni- 
versally used. That honest, good man prevailed upon several 
respectable ministers to omit it. Since his departure, the num- 
ber of those who repeat only scriptural doxoiogies has greatly 
increased, so that there are now many churches in which ths 
worship is strictly Unitarian. 



tnent for want of episcopal ordination, upon which 
some of his hearers laid much stress, though in the 
estimation of the more judicious members of his con- 
gregation, as well as of Mr. Freeman himself, it was 
rather a matter of expedience than necessity. To 
avoid, however, giving unnecessary offence, lie ap- 
plied for orders first to Bishop Seahury, who had 
lately been consecrated by the non juriog bishops of 
Scotland, and who exercised his jurisdiction over the 
episcopal churches in Connecticut. But this prelate, 
being a rigid Calvinist, would not lay hands upon his 
suspected brother. Application was then made to 
Dr. Provost, who had been elected bishop of the pro- 
vince of New- York, and who together with Dr. White 
had been consecrated to the episcopal office by the 
prelates of the church of England. This gentleman, 
who had been a pupil to Dr. Jebb, was a man of great 
learning, of liberal sentiments, and of deep piety. 
At the Convention of the episcopal clergy at Phila- 
delphia, he had himself proposed a very important 
alteration in the Litany, viz. to leave out the invo- 
cations to the Son, the Holy Ghost, and the Trinity ; 
and to retain only the first, which is addressed " to 
God the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and 
earth." To this worthy prelate, therefore, the mem- 
bers of the congregation at the King's Chapel repeat- 
edly applied to obtain episcopal ordination for their 
respected minister. . But the bishop, perhaps unwil- 
ling to give offence to his weaker brethren, referred 
the matter to the next Convention at Philadelphia ; 
which determined Mr. Freeman's friends, who had 
reason to apprehend, that whatever might be the in- 
formation and liberality of some individuals, the ma- 
jority would decide against him, to ordain their own 
pastor at home. This solemn rite, therefore, was 
performed, with the previous approbation of many 
persons of high character and worth who had been 
consulted upon the occasion, on Sunday the 18th of 
November, 1787? according to a form suggested by 
Governor Bowdoin, a gentleman, whose learning. 



14 

good sense, and merit, as Mr. Freeman expresses it 
iii his letter to Mr. Lindsey, u would give a sanction 
to any sentiment which he espouses," though the ho- 
nourable Governor was not a member of the King's 
Chapel congregation. " The whole ceremony," says 
Mr. Freeman, " was performed with great decency 
and solemnity in the presence of a very numerous as- 
sembly. Deep attention was impressed upon every 
countenance, and many of the advocates for religious 
liberty, of our own and other churches, could not for- 
bear expressing their sensibility by tears of joy." 
The form used upon this interesting occasion is pub- 
lished by Mr. Lindsey in Yindiciae Priestleiarise, who 
there expresses his entire approbation of it. All dif- 
ficulties were at length surmounted : the remaining 
scruples of those who were advocates for episcopal 
ordination gradually subsided/* and the cause of the 

* In tenderness to the prejudices of some worthy members of 
the congregation, a vote was passed by the Society, that Mr. 
Freeman's ordination should be confirmed by an episcopal im- 
position of hands, if it could be at any future time convenient- 
ly procured without sacrificing their own religious sentiments. 
But a circumstance occurred Shortly afterwards, which contri- 
buted more effectually to overrule the scruples of those who 
were unsatisfied, than any thing which Mr Freeman or his 
friends eouid say or write upon the subject. This was the or- 
dination of a clergyman at Boston by Bishop Seabnry. 

" If any prejudices remained upon the minds of my people 
in favour of episcopal ordination," says Mr. Freman in alelteer 
to Mr. Lindsey, dated October iff, 1788, " what you say in your 
book, the Vindicise Priestleianse, would effectually remove them. 
But they are already cured of all prepossessions of that nature. 
I mentioned in a former letter, that Bishop Scabury had ordain- 
ed a priest in Boston. The members of my congregation in 
general attended. They were so shocked with the service, par- 
ticularly with that part where the bishop pretends to commu- 
nicate the Holy Ghost and the power of forgiving sins, which 
he accompanied with the action of breathing on the candidate, 
that they now congratulate me upon having escaped what they 
consider as little short of blasphemy. Few of them had ever 
read, or at least attentively considered, the Ordination service. 
Since they have heard it, 1 have frequently been seriously ask- 
ed by them, whether I would have submitted to so absurd a form. 



id 

congregation continued to flourish under the auspices 
of this pious and exemplary preacher for upwards of 
twenty years. Since January, 1809, Mr. now Dr. 
Freeman lias been associated witSi a colleague, the 
Rev. Samuel 'Gary, who, if we may judge by the 
specimen of his talents and spirit in the sermon which 
he. delivered on the day of his ordination, and by the 
esteem and affection, expressed in the charge of his 
revered associate, is worthy of the honourable situa- 
tion which he occupies, and is well qualified to car- 
ry on the cause in which his excellent colleague lias 
been so long and so successfully engaged. May this 
holy cause continue to prosper in their hands, and 
when the chief Shepherd shall appear, may they re- 
ceive a crown of glory ! 

As a further means of diffusing the important doc- 
trines of the proper Unity of God, and the simple 
humanity of Jesus Christ, Mr. Lindsey made a pre- 
sent of his own and of Dr. Priestley's Theological 
Works to the Library of Harvard College, in the Uni- 

I confess that I am convinced I should have acted wrong if I 
had done it. I shudder when I reflect to what moral danger I 
exposed myself in soliciting ordination of the American bishops, 
for I certainly never believed that they had the power of con- 
veying the Holy Spirit." 

Bishop Seabury might be, and probably was a very honest 
man. Mow far his wisdom kept pace with his honesty, the 
following anecdote may assist the reader to judge. This vene- 
rable prelate, after having been invested, or imagined himself 
invested, with extraordinary powers by the manual imposition 
of a few obscure and ignorant priests in Scotland, when he had 
returned to Connecticut, wrote to Dr. Stiles, the president of 
the College, the learned friend and correspondent of Dr. Price, 
that it was his intention to be at the annual meeting of the in- 
stitution, but that he " hoped he should be received with pro- 
per distinction, and that his precedency would be allowed in 
the place alotted to him." To which the learned president 
sent back a courteous answer : " That they should be very 
glad to see Bishop Seabury, but that he could not promise him 
any such mark of distinction as he expected. One thing how- 
ever he could engage for, and would assure him of, that he 
would meet with a hundred and ninety-one as good Bishops as 
himself." 



10 

sity of Cambridge in New -England ; for which* 
*'■' as a very valuable and acceptable present.*'" he re 
ceived the thanks of the President and Fellows, 
These books were read with great avidity by the stu- 
dents. But though there is great reason to believe 
that the seed thus sown took deep root, and that in 
many instances it produced an abundant harvest ; 
and though many persons eminent for rank and talent 
in the New-England States* openly avowed the 
Unitarian creed, it does not appear that any numer- 
ous societies of Christians have hitherto followed the 
example of the congregation at the King's Chapel in 
making a public profession of the Unitarian doctrine. 
In March. 1792? an Unitarian congregation was 
formed at Portland, a considerable town of the dis- 
trict of Maine, in the north-eastern part of the State 
of Massachusetts. The worthy founder of this socie- 
ty was the Reverend Thomas Oxnard, a man of good 
talents, of sincere piety and of ardent zeal, who had 
for some years officiated as minister of the episcopa- 
lian church at Portland, and who had been convinced 
of the truth of the Unitarian doctrine by reading the 
works of Dr. Priestley and Mr. Lindsey, with which 
lie had been supplied by his friend Mr. Freeman. 
Through the same means, and by the public and pri- 
vate instructions of this good man, in the. course of a 
few years, many other persons of property and respec- 

* " Gov. Bowdoin," says Mr. Lindsey's worthy correspon- 
dent, " is a critic in biblical learning. Gen. Knox, one of the 
most distinguished officers in the late war, is an admirer oi 
such authors as Edward Search. General Lincoln, our pre- 
sent worthy Lieutenant-Governor, appears uniformly and open 
ly the friend of those doctrines that you approve. There are 
many others besides, in our Legislature, of similar sentiments. 
While so many of our great men are thus on the side <:f truth 
and free inquiry, they will necessarily influence many of the 
common people. As we have no establishment to oppose, the 
same zeal which is felt in England cannot be expected in this 
Country: but Rational Christianity will, I doubt not, make a 
rapid though not very visible progress. This letter was writ- 
ten in 17S»- 



17 

tabiliiy of character embraced and avowed the same 
principles. " I cannot," says this worthy man in a 
letter dated November, 1/88, " express to you the 
avidity with which these Unitarian publications are 
sought after. Our friends here are clearly convinced 
that the Unitarian doctrine will soon become the pre- 
vailing opinion in this country ; which must afford 
great pleasure to those good men, Mr. Lindsey and 
Dr. Priestley. Three years ago, I did not know a 
single Unitarian in this part of the country besides 
myself : and now, entirely from the various publica- 
tions you have furnished, a decent society might 
be collected from this and the neighbouring towns. 
When you again write to Mr. Lindsey, you may as- 
sure him in the most positive terms that his and Dr. 
Priestley's publications have had, and probably will 
have, great effects in this part of the country ; which. 
I am sure must afford him great satisfaction." 

Agreeably to this account, the doctrine of the pro- 
per Unity of God made a progress so rapid in the 
town and vicinage of Portland, that in the beginning 
of the year 1793 an effort was made to introduce a 
reformed Liturgy into the episcopal church ; which 
being resisted by one or two leading members of the 
congregation, the Unitarians, who constituted a con- 
siderable majority of the society, seceded from the 
rest ; and forming themselves into a separate church, 
they chose the Reverend Mr. Oxnard to be their mi- 
nister ; and being denied the use of the episcopal cha- 
pel, they assembled for religious worship at one of the 
public school houses, which was large and commodi- 
ous, and where they carried on the worship of the One 
God with increasing popularity and success. 

About the same time another society for Unitarian 
worship was formed at Saco, a populous village about 
twenty miles distant from Portland, under the auspi- 
ces of Mr. Thatcher, a gentleman of large property 
and of excellent character, who was repeatedly re* 
turned as representative in Congress for the northern 
district in the State of Massachusetts. Mr. Thatcher 
3 



m 

Wm- driginally an unbeliever;^ but possessing a <*&!$• 
did and inquisitive mind, he became a very sincere 
and rational Christian, in consequence of reading Dr^ 
Priestley^s Works ; and, as Mr. Lindsey's corres- 
pondent expresses it, " the influence of our divine re- 
ligion became very evident in his life and manners." 
This gentleman, by his conversation, his occasional 
publications, by lending Unitarian books, and by the 
great influence of his moral and religious character* 
contributed much to diffuse rational and pure Chris 
tianity in the vicinity of his residence, and formed at 
Saco a congregation of Unitarian Christians, which 
was for some time connected with that at Portland,, 
but afterwards became sufficiently numerous and re- 
spectable to maintain a separate minister. In Eng- 
land the spirit of the times is more liberal than th& 
spirit of the laws. In America it is the reverse ; and 
the bigotry of individuals sometimes labours to coun- 
teract the unlimited freedom of faith and worship^ 
which is the glory of the Constitution of the United 
States. The active zeal of Mr. Thatcher, in pro- 
moting the worship of One (rod in opposition to un- 
scriptural formularies and creeds, excited the malig- 
nant efforts of some of his bigoted neighbours to op- 
pose his re-election to a seat in Congress. But the 
high character, the approved patrio ism, and the dis- 
tinguished talents of that honourable gentleman se- 
cured him an easy triumph over the mean attacks of 
ignorance and envy, and he was again returned by a 
great majority. 

Upon the formation of the first Unitarian Society in 
the district of Maine, Mr. Lindsey r s intelligent cor- 
respondent makes the following just and important 
observations, in a letter dated May 21, 1792. 

" I consider the establishment of this society as an 
event peculiarly favourable to the progress of Unita- 
lianism in this country. The eastern division of this 
State, commonly called the province of Maine, of 
which Portland is the capital, is one of the most 
flourishing parts of the United States, It is rapidly 



IB 

Increasing in population and in wealth. Portland, 
which under the name of Falmouth was almost total- 
ly destroyed during the last war, has now become a 
large and respectable town, and bids fair in the course 
of half a century to rival Boston. Like other capital 
towns, it will probably influence the opinions of tlie 
surrounding country. It may be expected, therefore, 
that Unitarianism will grow with its growth, and be 
widely diffused. What favours this expectation is, 
that one of the ministers of the town, a very liberal and 
enlightened man, is upon very good terms with the 
Unitarian Society, and not disposed to discountenance 
them. In sentiment, he professes to be a Sabellian. 
The other ministers in the neighbourhood are in ge- 
neral ignorant and some of them vicious. The con- . 
sequence is, that there is less appearance of religion 
in the province of Maine than in any other part of 
New-England. I have no doubt, therefore, that a 
number of Unitarians, possessing that purity of morals 
for which they are generally distinguished, will have 
a great effect, not only in diffusing rational senti- 
ments, but also in reforming the practice of their fel- 
low-citizens. I give this not merely as my own opi- 
nion, but as the opinion of some gentlemen who are 
best informed in the State of the province of Maine. 
The establishment of a rational Christian society, and 
the happy changes which are to be expected in future, 
must, Sir, in a great measure be ascribed to the books 
which you have sent over. What, therefore, must 
be your triumph, when you reflect that you have en- 
lightened the minds of your fellow Christians, and 
that you will probably be the means of turning many 
to righteousness !" 

How far this worthy and ardent correspondent of 
Mr. Lindsey was warranted in the sanguine expecta- 
tions he expresses of the success and beneficial effects 
of the Unitarian doctrine in the New-England States, 
does not very distinctly appear. In 1788 lie states to 
his venerable friend, that the Socinian scheme is less 
frightful than it was some years ago, and begins to 



m 

have some public advocates. The oaTy minis ter> 
however, who then preached in favour of it was Miv 
Bentley, of Salem, a fellow-collegian and intimate 
friend of the writer, who describes him as " a young 
man of a bold independent mind, of strong natural 
powers, and of more skill in the learned languages 
than any person of his years in the State." This 
gentleman had the good fortune to be connected with 
a congregation uncommonly liberal, who were not 
alarmed at any improvements, and who were pleased 
with the introduction of Bishop Lowth's translation? 
of Tsaiah, and of other improved translations of the 
prophetic Scriptures, in preference to the common 
English version, which was a liberty that few of the 
ministers in New-England would be allowed to take. 
In 1793, Unitarianism remained at Portland in the 
state in which it had been settled the preceding year : 
but the Clergy in the neighbourhood of Saco having 
passed a censure upon these opinions as unsound and 
heretical, the consequence of this attack was an able 
defence of the doctrine by its advocates in that vicin- 
age, and a subscription for building an Unitarian 
church. In the year 1794, the same respectable 
correspondent communicates to his venerable friend 
the progress which the doctrine and worship of the 
One true God, the Father, were making ia the south- 
ern districts of the State of Massachusetts. " The 
counties of Plymouth, Barnstable and Bristol, were 
the first part of New-England settled by the English ; 
and till the year 169% when they were annexed to 
Massachusetts, constituted a distinct province. The 
first settlers were a religious and industrious people, 
of more candid minds and less disposed to persecution 
than the settlers of Massachusetts. Though the coun- 
try is barren, yet it has become one of the most popu- 
lous districts of the United States. The inhabitants 
are enlightened and virtuous. Crimes are unknown ; 
and there has not been a capital execution for upwards 
of sixty years. Such characters are valuable acqui- 
sitions" to the cause of truth. It must give you plea 



£1 

sure, therefore, to learn that two ministers, one in the 
county of Plymouth, and the other in the county of 
Barnstable, have lately come forward and openly op- 
posed the doctrine of the Trinity. Their preaching 
has made a deep impression, and converts have been 
multiplied. In Barnstable county in particular, there 
is a very large body of Unitarians." 

This letter was written not long after the worthy 
writer had received intelligence of Mr. Lindsey's re- 
signation of the pastoral office, on account, not of de- 
clining health, but of advanced age ; and I cannot 
deny myself the gratification of transcribing Dr. Free- 
man's excellent and judicious reflections upon that oc- 
casion. " I fervently pray, dear sir, that your health 
may long be preserved, and that your old age may be 
as happy as the meridian of your life has been active 
and useful. You now enjoy the fruits of your labours. 
You have reclaimed many from the errors of idolatry 
and superstition. You have diffused knowledge and 
truth not only in England but America. But what is 
most to your honour, though you have displayed all 
the zeal of a reformer, yet you have possessed none 
of that bitterness of spirit with which reformers are 
too often infected. In your numerous works I find 
no harsh expressions or malignant censures. I con- 
template this part of your character with peculiar 
pleasure ; and though I am conscious I am frequent- 
ly more angry with error and bigotry than a Chris- 
tian ought to be, yet I ardently desire to imitate your 
candour and mildness of temper. Excuse this praise ; 
it is suggested to me by your two last excellent dis- 
courses." This is a high and at the same time a 
discriminating and justly merited eulogy, and must no 
doubt have been gratifying to the venerable person to 
whom it was addressed ; whose great humility would, 
however, lead him to disclaim in part, at least, his 
title to it. 

In a letter dated May 24th, 1796, the amiable and 
candid writer expresses some little doubt, whether his 
zeal may not have induced him inadvertently to ex- 



aggerate the success of Unitarian principles in the 
United States ; and he endeavours to give a correct 
account of the actual state of the public mind upon 
this subject. As this is the last of Dr. Freeman's 
letters upon the state of Unitarianism in America, 
which is in my possession, and as it contains a more 
general view of the case than he had before exhibited, 
I shall make uo apology for the length of the extract: 
" I consider it," says this intelligent correspondent 
to his venerable friend, " as one of the most happy 
effects which have resulted from my feeble exertions 
in the Unitarian cause, that they have introduced me 
to the knowledge and friendship of some of the most 
valuable characters of the present age ; men of 
enlightened heads, of pious and benevolent hearts ; 
quibuscum vivere amem* quibuscum obire libens. 

u Though it is a standing article of most of our social 
libraries, that nothing of a controversial nature should 
be purchased, yet any book which is presented is free- 
ly accepted. I have found means, therefore, of intro- 
ducing into them some of the Unitarian Tracts with 
which you have kindly furnished me. There are few 
persons who have not read them with avidity ; and 
when read, they cannot fail to make an impression 
upon the minds of many. From these and other 
causes, the Unitarian doctrine appears to be still up- 
on the increase. I am acquainted with a number of 
ministers, particularly in the southern part of this 
state, who avow and publicly preach this sentiment. 
There are others more cautious, who content them- 
selves with leading their hearers, by a course of ra- 
tional but prudent sermons, gradually and insensibly 
to embrace it. Though this latter mode is not what 
I entirely approve, yet it produces good effects. For 
the people are thus kept out of the reach of false opi- 
nions, and are prepared for the impressions which will 
be made on them by more bold and ardent successors, 
who will probably be raised up when these timid cha- 
racters are removed off the stage. In the eastern 
part of this State, or what is called the District of 



23 

Maine, the Unitarian doctrine also makes progress 
as 1 have just been informed by a worthy and judici- 
ous minister from that quarter. The Clergy are ge- 
nerally the first who begin to speculate : but the peo- 
ple soon follow, where they are so much accustomed 
to read and enquire. 

" In the accounts which I give you of the state of 
religious opinions in this country, I always endeavour 
not to exaggerate, sensible that every zealous man 
(and I confess that 1 am zealous) is naturally dispos- 
ed to rate his own party as highly as he can. It is 
possible that Unitarianism may be losing ground in 
one quarter while it is gaining it in another, and that 
I may not perceive or may not attend to the former. 
Indeed, I confess and lament that the opinion is 
scarcely known in the largest part of this vast Repub- 
lic. It flourishes chiefly in New-England ; but not 
much in Connecticut, Rhode-Island, New- Hamp- 
shire, and the western counties of Massachusetts. A 
few seeds have been sown in Vermont, and an abun- 
dant harvest has been produced in the vicinity of 
Boston and the counties directly south of it. In 
Pennsylvania, much may be expected from the la- 
bours of Dr. Priestley." — It is now upwards of fifteen 
years since this letter was written ; and though it can- 
not reasonably be doubted that the important doctrines 
of the unrivalled supremacy and sole worship of the 
Father, and of the proper humanity of Jesus Christ, 
have during that period been gradually advancing in 
a country so favourable to freedom of enquiry ; yet it 
may justly be questioned whether the progress of truth 
has been quite so rapid, visible, or extensive, as the 
zeal of this ingenuous and ardent lover of truth 
prompted him to expect. Dr. Priestley's personal 
ministry in the United States was attended with very 
little apparent success. In Northumberland, where 
he resided, he collected but few proselytes ; and in 
Philadelphia, where the chapel in which he preached 
was at first crowded with the principal characters in 
the United States, he was afterwards for some reason 



M 

«&* other almost deserted. Yet here his labours were 
not wholly ineffectual. Since Dr. Priestley's decease 
a small, but highly respectable congregation, has been 
formed, in which, till a regular minister can be pro- 
cured, a few of the most intelligent and best informed 
members conduct the service by turns ; and the socie- 
ty, upon the whole, is increasing, though some who 
once professed zeal in the cause have turned their 
backs upon it. The Unitarians in Philadelphia are 
now erecting a chapel for religious worship, to which 
many of different persuasions have contributed liber- 
ally. 

Another Unitarian congregation has been formed 
at Oldenbarneveld, a new settlement in the back 
country of the state of New-York, under the patron- 
age of Col. Mappa, a gentleman of a truly respecta- 
ble character, and of considerable property and in- 
fluence in that district, aided by the exertions of the. 
Rev. Frederick Adrian Vanderkemp, a learned and 
pious emigrant from Holland, whose zeal for the doc- 
trine of the Divine Unity has exposed him to many 
difficulties and privations. This church was, for a 
few years, under the pastoral inspection of the Rev* 
John Sherman, who in the year 1805 was dismissed, 
on account of his Unitarian principles, from his office 
as minister of the first church at Mansfield in Con- 
necticut, where he had officiated upwards of eight 
years with great and increasing acceptance and suc- 
cess. Of the circumstances which led to this separa- 
tion, and of the inquisitorial spirit which was exerted 
against him by the bigoted clergy in his neighbour- 
hood, he published a plain and affecting account, a 
copy of which now lies before me. And- if some ex- 
pressions of irritation have escaped him, which it 
would perhaps have been better to omit, it requires 
but little charity to make allowance for them where 
the provocation was so great and unmerited. 

This gentleman, in consequence of an attentive pe- 
rusal of the works of Mr. Lindsey and Dr. Priestley, 
became a sincere and zealous convert to the doctrine 



m 

©Fthe proper Unity and Sole Supremacy of God, to the 
simple humanity of Jesus Christ, and to the appropria- 
tion of religious worship to the Father only. A doc- 
trine of such high importance, and so materially dif- 
fering from the popular creed, he justly conceived it 
to be his duty to avow and teach.* And in the first 

* This worthy confessor's plain and artless narrative of fhs 
Feelings of Ills mind upon this occasion, is well deserving of be- 
ing here transcribed, and may it make a due impression upon 
all who are placed in similar circumstances, and called out to 
similar trials i 

" Settled," says he, " in the sentiment that God is one person 
only, and that Jesus Christ is a being distinct from God, de- 
pendent upon him for his existence and ail his powers, I was in- 
volved in much trial and perplexity of mind with respect to the 
course which duty required me to pursue. I was aware of the 
prejudices of my brethren in the ministry, and foresaw that, 
should my sentiments be made public, they would certainly ex- 
ert themselves to destroy my ministerial and Christian stand- 
ing ; that my standing with the people of my charge, 
whose confidence I was so happy as to possess, would be endan- 
gered, if not by their own prejudices, yet by the influence and 
exertions of others; and considering the state of the American 
churches, that I could hardly expect an invitation to minister to 
any people on this side of the Atlantic. Poverty, a diminution 
of my usefulness, and the unhappy condition of my beloved fa- 
mily, stared me in the face, and conjured me to be silent re- 
specting my opinions. 

" On the other hand, I considered that, having avowed dif- 
ferent sentiments at my ordination, it could not be reconciled 
to a frank and open honesty to allow the world to be deceived 
as to my real belief; — that it is the duty of the minister of the 
Gospel to instruct men in the knowledge of its important doc- 
trines ; — that I was accountable to God for my conduct in this 
matter, who requires of stewards that a man be found faithful, 
and who certainly must desire his people to be acquainted with 
the truth, or he would never have revealed it: — that no refor- 
mation from prevailing errors could take place, if those who 
are acquainted with the truth should, through the fear of per- 
secution, conceal it from public view ; — and finally, that it is 
base and unbecoming the dignity of man, in this nineteenth cen- 
tury of the Christian aera, in this land of liberty and free inqui- 
ry, to bow down to popular absurdities and superstitions, and 
quietly to abandon the unalienable right of private judgment. 
These considerations determined me to put all temporal things 
at hazard, and to place my trust in that wise Providence which 

4 



place he communicated his change of sentiments f# 
the congregation with which he was connected; when, 
to his great surprize and satisfaction, he found that, 
with a single exception, they were all earnestly de- 
sirous that he should continue his connection with 
them, and that each should quietly allow to others 
the right of private judgment in this and every other 
case. This however did not satisfy his clerical bre- 
thren, with whom, as residing in the neighbourhood, 
he had joined hi a voluntary association. Being duly 
informed by Deacon Southworth, the dissatisfied 
member before alluded to, of his reverend pastors- 
departure from the faith, they first in a formal session, 
held in October, 1SG4, excluded him from their so- 
ciety, and disavowed ministerial connection with him. 
And in this measure w r as no injustice ; for the asso- 
ciated ministers had as good a right to judge of the 
truth and importance of their opinions, as Mr. Sher- 
man of his. But the zeal of these pious inquisitors- 
did not stop here : they wrote an official letter to the 
church at Mansfield, stating, thai they had judged it 
to be their duty to withdraw from their heretical bro- 
ther their own ministerial connexion, and pretty plain- 
ly intimating their expectation that the society would 
f<d!ow their example, and dismiss their pastor,, who 
stood convicted by his own confession of many capi- 

had always been kind, and which vvHI either deliver us fronr 
the evil, or inspire us with fortitude to endure it." 

Upon these generous and pious principles did this Christian 
confessor act throughout the whole of this arduous conflict ; and 
however his ignorant and malignant persecutors might injure his* 
good name, and deprive him and his family of the comforts of 
society, and leave them destitute of the necessaries of life, they 
could not rob him of the inestimable treasure of an approving 
conscience. How rapicHy and extensively must the cause of 
Christian truth prevail, if all who were convinced of it possess- 
ed the fortitude ami zeal of Mr. Sherman ! But this is an 
elevation of character to which every one cannot attain. Dif- 
ferent persons have different gifts, and are called to different 
duties. Let every one judge impartially for himself, and can- 
crHh for other*. 



m 

*&I errors. This advice, though heated with merited 
aieglect by a majority of the church, nevertheless 
made a considerable impression upon a small number 
of feeble-minded members, who, in April, 1805, ad- 
dressed a letter to the venerable association, expressing 
their dissatisfaction with their worthy pastor for de- 
nying, as they express it, that " the man Christ Jesus 
is truly and properly God ;" which, say they, " is a 
doctrine which we cannot be persuaded to give up 
but with the Bible which contains it." And they fur- 
ther profess that "the doctrine of a Trinity of Persons 
iu the Godhead, as held by Calvinistic divines for 
ages, is a doctrine, clearly taught in the holy Scrip- 
tures ;" and that, " however mysterious and incom- 
prehensible, it lies at the very basis of Christianity." 
Under these difficulties, they implore the advice of the 
reverend Association. But notwithstanding all the 
activity of Deacon Southworth, and the artifices and 
intrigues of some bigots in the neighbourhood, only 
ten signatures could be procured to this address. 
Such however was the eagerness of the venerable bo- 
dy, and such their zeal to exterminate heresy, that 
they immediately directed an answer to be sent to the 
complainants, advising them to have recourse to a 
Council or Consociation, which is an Ecclesiastical 
Court consisting of ministers and messengers, and in- 
vested by law with great and indefinite powers. But 
as the Consociation was to consist in a great measure 
of the same ministers of whom the Association was 
formed, who had already prejudged the cause, and 
as the congregation at Mans del d had never acknow- 
ledged the jurisdiction of this Court, they rejected the 
advice with the contempt it deserved. Nevertheless, 
as this worthy confessor saw that his unrelenting ad- 
versaries were determined to pursue every possible 
method to disturb the peace of the society, and to ac- 
complish his ruin, and being desirous of preventing the 
disastrous consequences of religious discord, he came 
to the resolution of resigning his pastoral office. This 
resolution he communicated (o bis friends ; and at his 



m 

desire the church and congregation concurred with 
him in inviting, according to the custom of the coun- 
try, a Mutual Council of respeetahle ministers to give 
their advice in the case, and, if they should judge it 
expedient, to grant Mr. Sherman an honourable dis- 
mission and recommendation. 

This council assembled in October, 1805, and Mr, 
Sherman first stated his case, and the reasons which 
led him to wish to resign his connexion with the con- 
gregation at Mansfield. After which, a deputation 
from the church, that is, from the communicants,* 
were heard on their own behalf 5 who stated, that 

* It may not perhaps be known to the generality of readers, 
that, in the strict independent form of church government, the 
whole power of ecclesiastical discipline, the entire manage- 
ment of the property, and the sole right of choosing or dis- 
missing a minister, is vested in the church, that is, in the body 
of communicants, of those who have been admitted into the 
communion of that church in particular, according to its pre- 
scribed forms, or who have been received by regular dismissioa 
from other churches. Mere subscribers have no vote, how- 
ever numerous and opulent. Mr. Howard, the celebrated phi- 
lanthropist, was the richest member, and the most liberal sup* 
porter of the congregation at Bedford ; he also joined statedly 
in communion with the church ; but not having been regularly 
admitted into the church, he was only regarded as an occasion- 
al communicant ; and in the choice of a minister, not the least 
attention was paid to his expressed opinion and desire, and a 
minister was chosen who was by no means acceptable to him. 

In Northamptonshire I recollect another instance in which a 
venerable minister of irreproachable character, of most amia- 
ble manners, and unimpeached orthodoxy, was dismissed from 
his office by the church, under some trilling pretence, in oppo- 
sition to the sense of by far the most respectable part of the 
congregation. His friends appealed to a court of law, to rein- 
state their respected minister in his office. But Lord Mans- 
field, who whatever might be his political delinquencies, was a 
most libera! and impartial judge in ail cases in which the rights 
of Protestant Dissenters were concerned, demanded to see the 
writings of the place: and finding that they vested the com- 
municants with the discretionary power of choosing and de- 
posing a minister, he dismissed the cause immediately, and 
the worthy veteran was obliged to resign his claims. Another 
chapel however was provided for him, where he continued la 



29 

though the discontented party did not constitute more 
than one third of the churchy yet they plainly perceiv- 
ed that their design was first to exclude their pastor, 
and then to excommunicate their brethren. That, in 
order to prevent this schism, they had offered to the 
complainants either that they should remain unmolest- 
ed with the majority ; or, that the majority, for the- 
sake of peace, should dismiss their pastor, in order to 
remain unmolested with them ; or, if this would not 
satisfy their opponents, Mr. Sherman's friends would 
retain and maintain their own minister, and let the 
discontented party have theirs. This concession, 
however, liberal as it was, did not satisfy the dissu 
dents. Lastly, a deputation from the Congregation 
were heard before the Council, who stated, that not 
less than nine-tenths of the society were well satisfied 
with their minister, and had no desire to part with 
him, or to restrain him in his enquiries. " Being," 
as they express it, " tenacious of the right of private 
judgment, they wish to indulge their minister in the 
same : neither would they wish that he should act the 
hypocrite to gain the approbation of any man. And 
they apprehend that, in case Mr. Sherman is dis- 
missed, the society will soon be found " in a most un- 
happy situation, not likely to be settled with another 
minister for many years." 

officiate, and was supported by his friends as long as he livcJ.\ 
In America, it is presumed that where the independent form 
of church government prevails, this principle is in general 
maintained. But in Connecticut, they have strangely deviated 
from the original freedom of the separate churches, by the in- 
stitution of what is called the Consociation, a sort of spiritual 
court, which was established in Connecticut in the beginning 
of the last century. This court has power to interfere " upon, 
all occasions ecclesiastical," and its censures are authorised 
and supported by the civil power. Each Consociation consists 
of ministers and messengers from every congregation which be- 
longs to it. But no congregation is compelled to join it. As 
fur as its power extends, it is properly a court of inquisition ; 
and in some cases the members have discovered too much of an 
inquisitorial spirit. 



Notwithstanding however these strong facts, this' 
noble profession, and this conciliatory spirit, the pru- 
dent Council proceed, as a matter of expediency, to 
dismiss Mr. Sherman from his connection with the 
society : and while they bear honorable testimony to 
his character and talents, and " recommend him to 
the kind reception of those who may see lit to employ 
him," they cautiously subjoin, that they " do not con- 
sider themselves as giving their approbation of Mr. 
Sherman's peculiar phraseology or circumstantial 
difference of sentiment on the subject of the Trinity." 
And in their subsequent advice to Mr. Sherman, they 
admonish him to guard against a bold spirit of specu- 
lation, and an inordinate love of novelty. 

It is not a little curious to contrast those differences 
of opinion which this venerable Council coolly des- 
cribes under the soft expressions of peculiar phraseo- 
logy and a circumstantial difference of sentiment. The 
man whom they gravely caution against a bold spirit 
©f speculation and inordinate love of novelty, asserts 
the doctrine, that there is One God, the sole object of 
religious worship, and one Mediator between God 
and man, tine man Christ Jesus, who is the prophet 
and messenger of God. While his orthodox oppo- 
nents, to Accommodate whom the Council think it ex- 
pedient to dismiss their exemplary pastor, maintain 
*» A doctrine essential to salvation, and which they 
Vir-an never give up but with the Bible which contains 
it," that " the man Jesus is truly and properly God." 
Is the venerable Council serious in stating differences 
so glaring and so substantial as these, as nothing more 
than a " peculiar phraseology" and a " circumstan- 
tial difference of sentiment" ? No ! No ! Opinions 
such as these can no more harmonize with each other 
than light and darkness, than Christ and Belial. — 
They who hold doctrines so diametrically opposite 
cannot be fellow- worshippers in the same temple. It 
was expedient that they should separate. So far the 
Council judged right. But the difficulty lies in dis- 
covering the expedience, the justice, the common sense 



M 

of making the greater submit to the less ; in deciding 
In opposition to the declared principles and wishes of 
two thirds of the church and nine-tenths of the con- 
gregation* It is not to be doubted that the members 
of this Council were upright and honorable men. But 
as the case now stands, it is impossible to approve of 
their decision. Why is the majority to be sacrificed 
to the minority? Why is the upright, conscientious 
enquirer after truth to fall a victim to bigotry, igno- 
rance, and intolerance ? This surely is a miserable 
way of promoting either truth of peace. So the mem- 
hers of this truly respectable but too timid and cautious 
Council have themselves seen reason to acknowledge; 
and one of them at least has amply redeemed his 
character, and has himself very lately become a fel- 
low-sufferer in the cause of truth,* 

* This gentleman is the Rev. Abiel Abbot, late pastor of the 
first church iu Coventry in the state of Connecticut, where he 
was settled in February 1795, and continued to exercise his 
ministry peaceably and acceptably for fifteen years. In Feb- 
ruary 1810, some of the members of his church discovered in 
the worthy pastor symptoms of heresy, and after some discus- 
sion the church applied for advice to the Association which 
assembled in October, who again referred them to the Consocia- 
tion which assembled in April? 18il. The Consociation sum-* 
moned the worthy pastor to reply to the charge : but Mr. 
Abbot protested against their jurisdiction ; neither iVmself, nor 
the church of* which he was pastor, nor the congrcgatiJ^hiivins; 
ever joined the Consociation, or acknowledged its authority. 
The society likewise entered a similar protest. The Consocia- 
tion however, nothing daunted, voted its own competency and 
authority, and in their way proceeded to examine the merits of 
the case: the result of which was, that the Rev. Abiel Abbot 
does neither preach nor believe the doctrine of the sacred Trin- 
ity ; — that he does neither preach nor believe the divinity of 
Jesus Christ :■ — that he does neither preach nor believe the doc- 
trine of the atonement by the blood of Christ, nor of justifica- 
tion by his imputed righteousness ;— and that doctrines contrary 
to these, and subversive of the Christian's faith and hope, are 
by him taught and inculcated. Voted, That the man who 
neither believes nor preaches the doctrines specified, is disquali- 
fied for the office of the Gospei ministry; for he has essential- 
ly renounced the Scriptures, has made shipwreck of faith, has 
denied •.*»« MassiaU, &c* The CoiHioil lULic-fore feel them- 



32 

Mr. Sherman being thus unexpectedly dismissed 
from a congregation where he had passed eight years 

selves required by Jesus Christ, the great God and Saviour, &e. 
to declare, and they hereby do declare, that the ministerial re* 
lation between the Rev. A. A. and the first church at Coven- 
try ought to be, and is dissolved, &c. 

Such at the commencement of the nineteenth century wai 
the language, and such were the extravagant claims, of an as- 
sembly of Protestant Christian Ministers, assuming the title of 
the Consociation of the County of Tolland in the State of Con- 
necticut. Neither the Fathers of the Council of Trent, nor 
those of Nice, nor of any intervening Council, whether gene- 
ral or special, ever pretended to higher authority, nor made a 
holder claim to inspiration or infallibility. 

Mr. Abbot however, and his friends, the great majority of 
Lis society, not feeling themselves inclined to submit to the 
dictates of the inspired Council, resolved that the unwarranted 
censure of the Consociation should have no effect upon their 
mutual connexion ; and he still continued to officiate among 
them as before Nevertheless, to guard on the one hand against 
the interposition of the secular arm, and on the other to testify 
Lis respect to the Council itself, the members of which were in- 
dividually respectable, this amiable and persecuted confessor 
thought it advisable to invite a Mutual Council of grave and 
learned divines from the State of Massachusetts, to deliberate 
how far it was bis duty to respect the decision of the Tolland 
Consociation. The very sensible and pious answer of Dr. Os- 
good, who declined attending, contains many very just and per- 
tinent observations. " For myself," says he, " i have little 
faith in, oy'respeet for, Ecclesiastical Councils. I have long 
thoiight^'iiem unauthorised in Scripture, and for the most part 
• urse than useless, excepting as mere referees or arbiters mu- 
tually chosen by parties at variance to settle their disputes." 
Speaking of the censure of the Consociation, he adds, "It is 
indeed a most extraordinary procedure, in this land of repub- 
lican liberty, where all Ecclesiastical Establishments are ex- 
plicitly disclaimed. This consideration, however, assures you, 
that though the tongues and pens of Ecclesiastical Councils 
be as free and unrestrained as those of any other description of 
eitizens, yet they have no power to execute their decrees ; and 
you have no more reason to tremble at the anathema of the 
Consociation of Tolland County, than at a bull of the Roman 
Pontiff. It might, therefore, perhaps, be advisable to let it 
pass with a little notice; suffering it to have no other effect 
than to render you a better Christian and a better man." 

These are the observations and advice of a wise and good 
man \ which perhaps it would have been most prudent to have 



S3 

in harmony and usefulness, now found himself east 
out upon the world destitute almost of the necessaries 
of life, and under the ban of a powerful party, who 
were determined to the utmost to obstruct his future 
exertions, and to drive him from the ministry. Hap^ 
pily, though the will was good, the power was want- 
ing. The pastor and the congregation appear to have 
regarded it as their duty to acquiesce in the decision 
of the council, however painful : and in an affecting 
address which was presented by the Society to Mr. 
Sherman, they express their deep regret at the unex- 
pected dissolution of their connexion, when they most 
wished for its continuance,- — when they most wanted 

followed. The Mutual Council, however, convened by Mr. 
Abbot and his friends, assembled at Coventry on the 5th of 
June, 1811, the venerable Dr. Lathrop in the chair ; and after 
due deliberation, they conclude that " the Consociation had no 
right to dissolve the connexion between the pastor and the so- 
ciety, the great majority of whom manifest a warm attachment 
to his person and ministry ; but, that from considerations of 
expediency, they do dissolve it, and declare that it is dissolved 
accordingly." Thus again, we see the sacred cause of Chris- 
tian truth, sacrificed to a mean and temporising policy ; and 
the faithful champion of truth, the amiable, useful, and belov- 
ed pastor, torn from his weeping flock, and consigned to pover- 
ty aud solitude, for the sake of preserving a hollow, deceitful, 
temporary peace. But this cannot last long; nor can such a 
measure be approved by the great Head of the church. Of 
this strange event, the virtuous sufferer has published a faiiA , 
and interesting narrative, which is written with a temper and 
spirit truly Christian. " I will bring," says he, " no railing 
accusation. The men from whom I have differed, I have lov- 
ed : the men from whom I have suffered, I have respected ; 
and to none am I conscious, to this hour, of feeling an un- 
friendly sentiment. From the heart I wish them grace, mercy, 
and peace." It is, however, but justice to the members of this 
perhaps, too cautious Council, to add, that they do not presume 
to judge of the faith of their unfortunate brother ; ti/at they 
express the highest respect for his moral character, and that 
they cordially recommend him to the pastoral office in some 
other church. And if there be, as I am sure there is, a love 
of truth, virtue, and liberty, in the New-England States, this 
able, honest, and pious sufferer for truth, will not be suffered 
to remain long in. silence and seclusion, 

5 



his ministerial services and friendly counsels,— rtiS. 
when he stood highest in their esteem, and had en- 
gaged their warmest affections. This address was 
voted, November iSth, 180;% and the answer to it is 
dated from Oldenbarneveld, January 1, 1806. Mr, 
Sherman's talents were not suffered to remain long 
unemployed ; and he appears almost immediately af- 
ter his dismission, to have been invited to undertake 
the pastoral charge of the small congregation which 
had been collected chiefly by the labours of the excel- 
lent Adrian Vanderkemp. And to enable him to 
remove his family to this distance, he received a very 
banclsome pecuniary present from his friends at Mans- 
field, which he acknowledges with warm gratitude. 
At last this respectable society seems to have roused 
itself from its slumbers, and to have taken the step 
which it might have been expected that their affection 
Would have dictated immediately upon their worthy 
pastor's dismission. The church and the congregation 
invite him to resume the pastoral office at Mansfield. 
This invitation was dated December 19, but it was 
then too late. A scene of greater usefulness had, in 
his estimation, opened before him, and to this consid- 
eration he/ regarded it as his duty to sacrifice personal 
gratification and social enjoyment. But, in his reply 
to this' application, he introduces a very judicious sum- 
mary of the evidence of the Unitarian doctrine, and 
concludes with expressing his grateful sense of the 
kindness of his friends, and with a very impressive 
address to the youth of the congregation.* 

* The conclusion of this worthy confessors address to the 
youth of his late congregation at Mansfield, is so excellent, that 
no apology can be necessary for inserting it. 

"To the great question in dispute, undoubtedly your minds 
are alsS directed. The subject is of primary importance, and 
demands your serious and attentive consideration. Surely you 
ought to know whether you are to be the worshippers of Three 
Hods, or of One God only. Let me exhort you to search the 
the Scriptures diligently on this point, and see whether they- 
leach you that three divine persons, three distinct moral agents, 
make, when added together, only one individual being. Should 



35 

For some years afterwards Mr. Sherman remained 
at Oldenbarneveld ; and in a letter to Mrs. Lindsey, 
tiated November 5, 1807? the worthy Mr. Vander- 
kemp expresses himself thus favourably of the exer- 
tions and success of his respected coadjutor. 

" It must fill Mr. Lindsey's heart with gladness 
that his labours are blessed here in the wilderness, 
through the means of those, whom he enlightened aud 
confirmed in the Gospel doctrine by his writings. 
Our pastor, with his amiable and worthy wife, has the 
greatest reason for gratitude to the Divine Being, be- 
ing beloved, respected, and useful in spreading reli- 
gious knowledge far and wide. Our situation, in a 
religious point of view, is very gratifying. Notwith- 
standing our pastor has to struggle with furious bigotry 
and ignorant superstition, which blacken his charac- 
ter and slander his innocence, while infidelity has her 
adherents through the whole country. That kind of 
writings are spread every where, and peddled round 
the country by hawkers in the wilderness, sometimes, 
under spurious titles. Volney and Paine, and Hollis 
are found in miserable cots and hovels, while it is 
often difficult to meet the sacred Scriptures. This evil 
has been nursed through the misconduct of high -fly- 
ins: Calvinist teachers in New-England in choosing 
their missionaries from the most stupid aud bigtfiexi; 
perhaps from necessity : v. hiie men of talents among 
them decline the task. It is therefore not surprising 
that our pastor is heard with delight wherever there 

the result of your investigation comport with the doetrine which 
I have taught you from the Scriptures, I wish you may be duly 
impressed with the importance of openly avowing it, and ap- 
pearing as its advocates; that as you rise into public life, you 
will never be ashamed of the interesting truth, but boldly and 
faithfully stand in its defence, though the multitude should be 
against you. Let your zeal, however, be well tempered with 
Christian charity. Be moderate and candid, liberal and ca- 
tholic, in your treatment of those who may differ. Above all, 
always remember that the best orthodoxy is a faithful observ- 
ance of the sacred precepts of that One God whom you pro- 
fess and acknowledge.'" 



36 

remains any claim to virtue and religion. His plaia, 
affable manners, his energetic manner of preaehing, 
his vast superiority over his antagonists in disputes, 
whenever they attack him, increase his influence 
every day. He preaches in the week twenty miles 
round, and is sanguine in his expectations that he 
shall form another society twelve miles from hence. 
Few weeks are passing in which some one or other 
of the vicinity do not join our church, and those by 
far the most respectable among them. Disney's Tracts 
and Seddon's Sermons have operated a great deal of 
good : so too have the works of my worthy friend? 
who now ere long shall receive the glorious reward 
of his labours. Our minister has instituted a school 
of moral instruction, in which every subject of natural 
and revealed religion is discussed freely." 

In a letter dated April, 1809, Mr. Vanderkemp 
writes in a less sanguine, yet not altogether discourag- 
ing strain. " The Gospel cause gains slowly here 
and at Philadelphia. We have at length succeeded 
to re engage our worthy minister," who it should 
seem was about to leave them for want of necessary 
support for his family. " His ministerial labours are 
not in vain. Well supplied with a tolerable library, 
he has seen it enlarged, by Mr. J. Priestley, and Mr. 
J. Taylor from Philadelphia, by some valuable ad- 
ditions. He deserves fuliy this encouragement. His 
talents are bright ; his sermons are plain and persua- 
sive ; his prayers devout and ardent ; and his con- 
duct struck his slanderers dumb." 

Unfortunately, whether it were owing to the inabi- 
lity of the congregation at Oldenbarneveld to raise an 
adequate income for the support of their worthy pas- 
tor ; or whether, as is often the case with persons of 
genius, and whose minds are devoted to intellectual 
pursuits, there might be on his part too little attention 
paid to economical arrangements ; in the next account 
we learn that Mr. Sherman was under the necessity 
of dissolving his connexion with his society, and that 
the flock was at that time left without a shepherd, and 



a? 

in a state by no means encouraging. " The best that 
I can say about our situation is," says the excellent 
Mr. Vanderkemp, in a letter to Mrs. Lindsey, dated 
August, 18 10, " that we are in a very torpid state. 
Since March we have no minister. Though a few 
doubled their subscriptions, though twice we took the 
defalcations of others on our account, we could not 
raise a sum adequate to his salary ; so the connexion 
was dissolved, to our great grief and the irreparable 
loss of this community. We have resolved, however, 
and continue steadfastly our religious meetings. Some 
of us have .engaged to read in turns ; so that we are 
edified sometimes by Clarke, and Tillotson, some- 
times by Blair, and sometimes by Lindsey, Priestley, 
Price, and Toulmin." 

Of the present state of the Unitarian doctrine in the 
District of Maine, the author of this Memoir is not 
informed. Whether the congregation at Portland, 
collected by the worthy Mr. Oxnard, or that at Saco 
under the patronage of the truly excellent Mr. That- 
cher, still exist, or in what state they now are, he 
has not heard. At Hallowell, the first families in the 
place are in their principles decidedly Unitarian ; and 
it is hoped they will find some opportunity of erecting 
an altar to the One God, and that by the powerful 
influence of instruction and example they will diffuse 
the blessings of rational religion, in a district which, 
under their auspices, is rapidly rising into opulence 
and distinction. 

In the state of Massachusetts, and particularly in 
the environs of Boston, the great cause of Christian 
truth is making a silent but rapid and irresistible 
progress. From the inquisitive and liberal spirit 
which prevails in the University of Cambridge, which 
has never been checked at any time, but which there 
is reason to expect will receive every requisite aid 
and encouragement from the present learned and ac- 
complised Principal, Dr. Kirkland, the happiest con- 
sequences may be expected to ensue. 

The edition of Griesbach's Greek Testament with 
select various readings, and with the accurate and la* 



borious author's latest corrections, a copy of which 
was procured in Germany by the reverend, learned, 
and eloquent Joseph S. Buckminster, which under his 
inspection has been elegantly and correctly reprinted 
in America, as a text-book for the Students of Har- 
vard College, cannot fail to contribute essentially to 
the true interpretation of the Sacred Oracles. And 
a large and beautiful impression of the Improved 
Version with the Notes, published by my intelligent, 
learned, and valuable friend and correspondent, Mr. 
W. Wells, of Boston, whose zeal for truth is beycnd 
all praise, will, it is hoped, contribute to the better 
understanding of difficult and doubtful passages in 
holy writ. The Monthly Anthology, the General 
Repository, and other valuable periodica] publica- 
tions, conducted by gentlemen of distinguished talents 
and liberality, tend very much to diffuse a spirit of 
inquiry. Bigotry is discountenanced; and, if 1 am 
not greatly misinformed, divine worship in many of 
the principal churches at Boston, is carried on up- 
on principles strictly, if not avowedly Unitarian.* 

* A very correct, certainly not a partial account of the present state 
of professed Unitarlanism in the State of the Massachusetts, and parti- 
cularly in Boston, has lately been published in the Monthly Repository 
for March and ApriJ ; 1812, in a letter addressed by my highly esteemed 
friend the Reverend Francis Parkman, of Boston, to the Reverend John 
Grundy, in reply to a tittering account of the state of Unitarianism in 
Boston and its vicinity, confined in the Appendix to Mr. Grundy's elo- 
quent discourse at the opening of a new place of worship at Liverpool. 
This account appears to have been communicated to my worthy friend 
by some person whose zeal in a good cause led him to see the objects of 
his wish in rather too favourable a light. See Appendix. W. IVells' Letter. 

The following extract from a letter written by a minister in America 
to his friend in England, dated October, 1810, thougli somewhat long, 
will, it is hoped, be found both entertaining and important ; it will throw 
much light upon the state of religion in Boston, and may give rise to 
some useful reflections. 

" In my return home I spent the Sabbath at Templeton, and I preach- 
ed twice. There are not more than forty or fifty families near the meet- 
ing ; but they come in all directions from the woods and mountains in 
such numbers, as to make all together a goodly company. There being 
in almost every parish, especially in Massachusetts and Connecticut, a 
settled minister always of good morals, and generally of real piety, to 
administer divine ordinances to them, and lead them in the way of truth 
and duty, can scarcely fail having a good influence upon the people at 
large, in preserving them from that gross ignorance and grievous profli- 
gacy so prevalent in many countries that are called Christian. Nothing 



89 

Being myself a friend to ingenuousness and candour, 
I could wish to see all who are truly Unitarians 

Would satisfy my son but I must, whilst in Boston, have my picture drawn : 
this cut up my time so very much, that I could not attend so many of 
their private meeting's as I otherwise should It was the General Election 
for the State ; the Democrats gained the ascendancy. I heard the Elec- 
tion Sermon preached by Dr. P. a very warm Federalist. He made it his 
business to expose the nefarious proceedings of the opposite party, in 
truth a most copious subject ; and was heard by the people in the galle- 
ries with high approbation, and almost clapping. The Convention Ser- 
mon (i. e. the Sermon preached before the General Assembly of Ministers) 
was preached by Dr. Porter. Full two hundred Ministers were in town. 
Their public business is transacted in the Court-House. The Convention 
has no ecclesiastical authority. Their proceedings and resolutions are 
merely advisory, but are not without considerable effect. The principal 
thing that came before them was a complaint against some Missionaries for 
going into parishes where there were settled Ministers, holding meetings 
without their knowledge, and even in opposition to their advice. The 
conduct of the Missionaries was highly disapproved. The Monday after 
the General Election for the State, there is always a Sermon preached to 
the Artillery Company. Mr. L. I was informed, gave them an excellent 
discourse, but I did not hear it. I went to the Meeting door, but the 
crowd was so great that I did not go in. The two Legislative Bodies, 
the Governor, and a number of the principal gentlemen and clergy, after 
the service was over, dined at Faneuil-Hall, a large building over the 
Market-House, where they have their town meetings and transact their 
town business. Mr. Jackson, the late British Minister, was there. I was 
invited to dine with them, but declined it. I was, however, introduced 
to Mr. Jackson at his lodgings, and once dined with him at Mr. B's. Mrs. 
Jackson with four other ladies were there, the rest of the party were 
gentlemen, about thirty in all. We had a splendid entertainment. Two 
courses of all the delicacies money could procure. Among the rest a dish 
of green peas, the first brought to market, which, the papers said, cost 
four dollars a bushel. The Bostonians paid Mr. Jac*kson great attention, 
and were much pleased with his behaviour while among them. I preach- 
ed for Dr. E. Mr. B. Mr. L. and Mr F. at the Stone Chapel. The last 
mentioned gentleman was never episcopally ordained ; of course, the Mi- 
nisters who have been so, never exchange with him. In his place the 
Governor used to worship, when the State was a British colony It is a 
large -tone building, just like an English church The other three are 
large and costly buildings, and have numerous assemblies meet in them. 
The galleries were designed principally for Negroes ; but there is now a 
Meeting built for the Africans to worship in by themselves. A Mulatto 
Minister preaches \o them. There are said to be eleven or twelve hun- 
dred people of colour in the town It was communion-day at Mr. B.'a ; 
there were about one hundred and fifty communicants. At Dr. E.'s there 
must have been two hundred. Never did I see such a display of plate on 
the comrnun ion-table. At Dr. E.'s there were five or six flagons which 
held from three to four quarts each ; six tankards, each containing a full 
quart ; two dozen of cups of various sizes and forms, with six large plates 
for the bread ; all handsome, and as bright as silver can be made. No 
person of a grain of sense can suppose these things to be of any impor- 
tance. But as many of these people display great opulence in their own 
houses, I see nothing improper in their expending a portion of their su- 
perfluous wealth upon the house of God. A Charity Sermon is preached 
once a quarter for the benefit of the poor belonging to the Congregational 



40 

Openly such, and to teach the doctrine of the siinpte 
indivisible Unity of God, as well as to practice the 

Societies in this town. The Ministers of that denomination preach It in 
their turns, and the money is equally divided among the societies for dis- 
tribution. About fourteen hundred dollars are collected in this way in 
the year. Mr. C preached ah excellent discourse, and is in truth a 
eharming preacher ; being 1 remarkably serious and sensible, and univer- 
sally liked. The place was quite full, though it will accommodate up- 
wards of two thousand people. There is always a collection at the Con- 
vention Sermon for the relief of poor Ministers and their families. About 
six hundred dollars were collected on that occasion.— 'Though the people 
in Boston have lost much of their ancient rigidity respecting the Sabbath, 
great attention is paid to that day. Few resort into the country, and 
those who do, go early in the morning that they may not be noticed. Ve- 
ry few visit on that day, and but few are to be seen in the streets, except 
when going to or from public worship, and then the streets are crowded. 
At sun-set their Sabbath is considered as ended ; the gentlemen often 
visit their friends, and the ladies sometimes take their work. In religious 
families the Saturday evenings are observed with strictness ; but some, as 
might be expected, under pretence of keeping Saturday evening in pre- 
ference to the other, keep neither. It is customary in the gayest, and 
even the most profligate, to connect themselves with some religious so- 
ciety, so far as to contribute to its support, and occasionally to attend. 
This is necessary if they would be thought of any consequence in society, 
and even to preserve themselves from ridicule and reproach. Dr. E. who 
has been a Minister at Boston above thirty years, tells me, he never knew 
a greater regard paid to religion in that town than now, nor does he think 
there ever was in his time more real goodness among them. On Election 
day, I dined with about thirty gentlemen at Mr. P.'s one of the Deacons 
of Dr. E.'s church. Wc had a most sumptuous entertainment. "When 
they had drank two or three glasses of wine after dinner the company 
dispersed. This 1 fi id is a pretty general practice, and thus all tempta- 
tion to drink to excf es is avoided Their graces before and after meals 
r. v e generally longer man with you. That office is assigned to the Mini- 
ster of the frost, or to the oldest Minister present. Episcopalianism is 
at most only upon a level with other denominations The Bostonians are 
Very commendable for keeping very much to their own places of worship, 
and for speaking of their Own Minister as one of the best preachers in the 
town. The Clergy seem to be comfortably supported, their salaries be- 
ing from 1500 to 2000 dollars a year ; and they are constantly receiving 
handsome presents. They very generally wear in the summer a silk go\v» 
and cassock, with a band ; in the winter a cloth one ; and altogether their 
worship is kept up in a splendid style. The pulpits throughout the coun- 
try will hold from four to six ministers ; and in Boston their rich cushions 
and curtains, or Venetian blinds, ornamented pillars and splendid chan- 
deliers, give their Meetings a magnificent appearance. I think those 
which have been lately built are too large ; a Minister must have a good 
voice to fill them. Boston is said to contain 30,000 people, and is increas- 
ing very fast. The ground on which the town stands is greath eh vatedon 
the south-west. It makes a noble appearance from the country. The State 
House on Beacon-hill is a magnificent structure. All their Meetings have 
steeples with one bell. That to the new Meeting in Park-Street is very 
lofty, and one of the handsomest I ever saw. It stands on high ground at 
the'top of the Mall, is seen all round the country, and indeed beyond the 
Light-house far into Massachusetts bay. The High Calvinists who built 
this Meeting expteted to have lessened the other congregations., hut I 



41 

rites of Unitarian worship. But I would not pre* 
sume to judge for another. There may possibly be 

am told they have not yet done it. Should they get a popular Minister* 
I have no doubt there will be a large society : the disposition of the peo- 
ple for attending public worship being such, that I expect all their Meet" 
ings will be weil attended. In the old part of the town the streets are 
narrow and crooked, but are much improved and improving in that re- 
spect. Formerly they were much exposed to depredations from fire, the 
houses being mostly built of wood. The danger from this quarter is les- 
sening daily, as no buildings higher than fourteen feet are permitted to be 
erected of wood now. The town stands on a peninsula, joining to the main 
land only by a narrow neck on the south. They were, therefore, obliged 
to make use of boats to get to and from town. But since the war, live 
bridges have been built over the different waters that surround Boston and 
Charlestown, which are a vast convenience to the inhabitants. These 
bridges are all built of wood, and some of them are above a mile in length. 
The Ministers of Boston and that vicinity discover considerable accuracy 
and taste in their compositions, and generally speaking, may be consider-^ 
ed as well furnished divines. Dr. O. is a man of very strong powers of 
mind ; and though he distinguishes himself upon all public occasions, and 
especially those of a political nature, Ills general manner of preaching is 
very pious and edifying. The Clergy arc invited to a great many good 
dinners. A Boston merchant would hardly think of making a dinner for 
his friends without inviting three or four Clergymen. Some that I once 
knew, I believe injured their health and shortened their days by eating and 
drinking too much. Those now on the stage, do not give into any excess.*' 
For this long, but curious and interesting extract, T trust that the rea- 
der will require no apology. I will only add two brief reflections : First, 
that the Ministers of the Church of England are not the only persons who 
dislike itinerent intruders into parishes which are served by regular Cler- 
gymen. The spirit of all establishments is the same, whether the favour- 
ed sect be Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or Congregational. Secondly, ma}' 
it be permitted to put the question without offence : Can it upon the 
common principles of human nature be reasonably expected of a body of 
Clergy, nursed in the lap of ease and affluence and placed in a station of 
such high secular consideration and comfort as that of the Ministers of 
Boston, that they should come forward and by an open profession of un- 
popular truth voluntarily risk the loss of all their temporal dignity and 
comfort, and incur the contempt and enmity of many who are now their 
warmest admirers and friends ? I say not this by way of disparagement, 
to the present body of Ministers in Boston and its neighbourhood. Some 
of these I have the pleasure to call my friends, and know them to be pos- 
sessed of talents the most distinguished, of piety the most fervent, and of 
benevolence and zeal the most ardent, active and laudable ; and of the 
rest I have heai'd a most favourable character. It is the situation, not 
the men, which excites my apprehensions. And who will venture to say of 
himself, that his virtue would be equal to the trial ? Yet still it cannot rea- 
sonably be hoped that truth will make any visible and rapid progress, till 
her advocates rise above the fear of man and the love of ease, and are 
willing with the apostles of Christ and the reformers of every age, to foiv 
sake all and to sacrifice their dearest interests in her glorious cause. The 
encouragement and success which such faithful confessors would meet 
with in that populous and opulent city, would, I doubt not, he very great. 
The harvest truly is plenteous, it is ripe and ready to be gathered in- 
"Highly honoured will that servant be to whom the great Master of the 
iicld shall communicate a portion of his energetic spirit, and shall sav 
"Put in thy sickle and reap." 

6 



42 

reasofts for caution which do not occur to me, and of 
which I am not competent to judge. The time must 
however come, perhaps it is near, when truth will no 
longer endure confinement, but will hurst forth in all 
her glory. The dull hollow rumbling at the bottom 
of the sea, which is scarcely noticed by the inattentive 
traveller who is glidiug carelessly over the solid plate 
of ice which encrusts the surface, is, to the wary and 
experienced observer, a sure presage of the speedy 
and sudden explosion of the immense superincumbent 
mass, and of the restoration of the imprisoned waves 
to their native freedom, to the consternation and often 
to the utter destruction of those who refuse to listen' 
to the friendly premonition.* 

* See the interesting narrative of the very narrow escape 
of two Moravian Missionaries in travelling over the ice, in 
consequence of neglecting the advice of some friendly Esqui- 
maux, in the history of the Mission of the United Brethren 
to Labrador. 



APPENDIX. 

JFrom William Wells. Esq. of Boston, in New- 
England, to the Author. 

Boston, March 21, 1813. 
My Bear Sir, 

I AM glad to hear you received the Sermons safe. 
About six weeks ago I forwarded to Mr. Freme a 
parcel for you, containing the first No. of " The Ge- 
neral Repository and Review." For this you are in- 
debted to Mr. B. I think a letter from him accom- 
panied the Review, but am not sure, as 1 took no 
memorandum of the contents of the parcel. A second 
number will shortly appear, which shall be forward- 
ed by the earliest opportunity. I believe I mentioned 
in my last the name of the Editor, Mr. Norton, an 
excellent young man. Of his abilities you will be 
able to judge. I think the first article, and the Re- 
view of the Horsleian and Priestleian controversy dis- 
play a soundness of judgment which at his age is 
rare. A number of young men who have taken their 
bachelor's degree now reside at Cambridge as theo- 
logical students. Several of them are the sons of 
men of fortune, some, as far as I can judge, of superior 
talents; and all are pursuing their professional studies 
with a zeal which is well directed by the very worthy 
and learned Dr. Ware, professor of divinity, and Dr. 
Kirkland the president, and an honesty which is en- 
tirely unfettered and unbiassed by any system what- 
ever. We have to contend here, as you in Eng- 
land, for the first principles of protestantism, but I 
see no reason to fear that the ensuing generation will 
be destitute of able champions for the right of private 
judgment. 

With regard to the progress of Unitarianism, I 
have but little to say. Its tenets have spread very 
extensively in New-England, but I believe there is on 



h one Church professedly Unitarian. The Church- 
es at Portland and Saco, of which you speak, hardly 
ever saw the light, and exist no longer. The Mr. 
Thatcher who was formerly a Member of Congress, 
and the Judge T. whom Mr. Merrick mentions, are 
the same. He is one of the Judges of our Supreme 
Court, an excellent man and most zealous Unitarian. 
He is now on the circuit in this town, and tells me lie 
is obliged on Sunday to stay at home, or to hear a 
Calvinist Minister. He is no relation to our friend. 

Most of our Boston Clergy and respectable laymen 
{of whom we have many enlightened theologians) are 
Unitarian. Nor do they think it at all necessary to 
conceal their sentiments upon these subjects, but ex- 
press them without the least hesitation when they 
judge it proper. I may safely say, the general habit 
of thinking and speaking upon this question in Boston, 
is Unitarian. At the same time the controversy is 
seldom or never introduced into the pulpit. I except 
the Chapel Church. If publications make their ap- 
pearance attacking Unitarian sentiments, they are 
commonly answered with spirit and ability ; but the 
majority of those who are Unitarian are perhaps of 
these sentiments, without any distinct consciousness of 
being so. Like the first Christians, finding no senti- 
ments but those in the N. T. and not accustomed to 
hear the language of the N. T. strained and warped 
by theological system- makers, they adopt naturally a 
just mode of thinking. This state of things appears 
to me so favourable to the dissemination of correct 
sentiments, that I should perhaps regret a great degree 
of excitement in the public mind upon these subjects. 
The majority would eventually be against us. The 
ignorant, the violent, the ambitious and the cunning, 
would carry the multitude with them in religion as 
they do in politics. One Dr. M. in a contest for 
spreading his own sentiments among the great body 
of the people, would, at least for a time, beat ten 
Priestleys. Not to dwell upon the consideration, 
that Usitarianisni consists rather in not believing i 



and that it is more easy to gain proselites to absurd 
opinions, than to make them zealous in refusing to 
believe. With what arms, when the 01 ioKKoi are 
the judges, can virtue and learning and honour eon- 
tend with craft and cunning and equivocation and 
falsehood and intolerant zeal ? Learning is worse 
than useless, virtue is often diffident of her own con- 
clusions, and, at any rate, more anxious to render men 
good Christians, than to make them Christians of her 
own denomination ; and that self-respect, which is the 
companion of virtue, disdains to meet the low cunning 
of her adversaries, or to flatter the low prejudices of 
her judges. I think then it must be assumed as an 
axiom, that a persevering controversy upon this ques- 
tion, would render the multitude bigoted and persecut- 
ing Calvinists. Then come systems and cathechisms 
in abundance. Every conceited deacon, every pa- 
rishoner who has, or thinks he has, a smattering in 
theology, becomes the inquisitor of his pastor. In 
such circumstances learning and good sense have no 
chance. They cannot be heard. 

The violent party here have chosen to meet their 
opponents upon very unfavourable ground. Instead 
of making it a cause of orthodoxy against heresy, 
they have very unwisely preferred to insist upon a 
subscription to articles of faith. This has given great 
offence to many who are disposed to be in favour of 
their creed, and thrown them into the opposite scale. 
Dr. Osgood is really orthodox in sentiment, but a no- 
ble and determined supporter of the right of private 
judgment, and on the best possible terms with our 
Boston friends. This is also the case with the vene- 
rable Dr. Lathrop of West-Springfield, Mr. Palmer's 
friend, and many others. In short we are now con- 
tending for the liberty of being Protestants. If we 
can persuade the people (and we stand upon advan- 
tageous ground) that we have the right to think upon 
religious subjects as our consciences and the scrip- 
tures direct, things will go on well. Learning, good 
sense, and virtue ; will then produce their natural ef- 



'D v 



46 

fects, and just modes of thinking upon subjects of this 
nature, as upon all others, will necessarily prevail. 

Will you, my dear Sir, excuse unintentional pro- 
lixity ? I do not know that you will approve my sen- 
timents, nor am I very confident of their justness : but 
I have seen the contest between truth and falsehood, 
before the multitude ; between every thing which is 
respectable and every thing which is detestable, so 
unequal in politics, that 1 dread the event in matters 
of religion. Still I would be no advocate for timi- 
dity, much less for any thing like equivocation, or 
evasion ; and it must be confessed, that prudence of. 
ten degenerates into these vices, 
am, dear Sir, 

With the greatest esteem, 
Yours affectionately, 

W. WELLS, Jur. 



Extract of a Letter from Thomas Jefferson, Esq. President 
of the United States, to Dr. Priestley, upon his ki Compara- 
tive View of Socrates and Jesus." 

Washington, April 9, 1803. 
Dear Sir, 

W 7 hile on a short visit lately to Monticello, I received from you a copy 
of your Comparative View of Socrates and Jesus, and I avail myself of the 
first moment of leisure after my return to acknowledge the pleasure I had 
in the perusal, and the desire it excited to see }ou take up the suhject on 
a more extensive scale. In consequence of some conversations with Dr. 
Rush in the years 1798 — 99, I had promised some day to write him a 
letter, giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often 
on it since, and even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should 
first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable 
of the ancient philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient informa- 
tion to make an estimate : say, of Pythagoras, Epicurus, Epictetus, 
Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Antoninus. I should do justice to the brandies 
of morality they have treated well, but point out the importance of those 
in which they are deficient. I should then take a view of the deism and 
ethics of the Jews, and shew in what a degraded state they were, and 
the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view 
©f the life, character, and doctrines of Jesus, who, sensible of the incor- 
rectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavoured to bring 
them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes 
of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice, 
and philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view 
would pui-posely omit the question of his divinity, and even of his inspi- 
ration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark the disad- 
vantages his doctrines have to encounter, not having been committed to 



4f ' 

Writing by himself, but by the most unlettered of men, by memory, long 
after they had heard them from him, when much was forgotten, much 
misunderstood, and presented in very paradoxical shapes. Yet such are 
the fragments remaining 1 , as to shew a master workman, and that his sys- 
tem of morality was the most benevolent and sublime probably that has 
been ever taught, and more perfect than those of any of the ancient philo- 
sophers. His character and doctrines have received still greater injury 
from those who pretend to be his spiritual disciples, and who have disfi- 
gured and sophisticated his actions and precepts from views of personal 
interest, so as to induce the unthinking part of mankind to throw off the 
whole 9ystem in disgust, and to pass sentence as an impostor on the most 
innocent, the most benevolent, the most eloquent and sublime character 
that has ever been exhibited to man. This is the outline ; but I have 
not the time, and still less the information which the subject needs. It 
will therefore rest with me in contemplation only. 

THOMAS JEFFERSON. 

Trom Dr. Priestley to Mr. Lindsey, containing remarks 
upon Mr. Jefferson's Letter. 

Northumberland, April 23, 1803. 
Dear Friend, 

In my last I promised to send you a copy of Mr. Jefferson's Letter 'on 
reading my pamphlet entitled " Socrates and Jesus Compared." The 
above is that copy. He is generally considered as an unbeliever : if so, 
however, lie cannot be far from us, and I hope in the way to be not only 
almost, but altogether what we are. He now attends public worship very 
regularly, and his moral conduct was never impeached.* 

J. PRIESTLEY. 



Extract of a Letter from Dr. Priestley, to Mr. Lindsey, 
soon after his arrival in America. 

New-York, JxtSte 15, 1794: 

With respect to myself the difference is great indeed. In England 

I was an object of the greatest aversion to every person connected with 
government ; whereas here they are those who show me the most respect, 
With you the Episcopal Church is above every thing. In this city it makes 
a decent figure, but the Presbyterians are much above them, and the 
Governor (Clinton), who is particularly attentive to me, goes to the 
meeting-house. 

But the preachers, though all civil to me, look upon me with dread, and 
none of them has asked me to preach in their pulpits. This however 
does them no good. Several persons express a wish to hear me, and are 
ashamed of the illiberality of the preachers, and some are avowed Unita- 
rians ; so that I am fully persuaded an Unitarian minister, of prudence and 
good sense, might do very well here. If I were here a Sunday or two more 
I would make a beginning, and I intend to return for this purpose. The 
greatest difficulty arises from the indifference of liberal-minded men as to 
religion in general ; they are so much occupied with commerce and poli- 
tics. One man of proper spirit would be sufficient to establish a solid 
Unitarian Interest ; and I am persuaded it will soon be done. As I am 
much attended to, and my writings, which are in a manner unknown here, 
begin to be inquired after, I will get my small pamphlets immediately 
printed here-, and wherever I can get an invitation to preach I will go 

* See JBehham's Life of hntlsey, Appendix, p. 538—540. 



48 

With this v'iewl shall carefully avoid all the party politics of the country", 
and have no other ohject besides religion and philosophy. Philadelphia 
will be a more favourable situation than this, and there 1 shall make a be- 
ginning It will be better, however to wait a little time, and not show 
much zeal at the first ; and as my coming here is much talked of, I shall 
reprint my Fast and Farewell Sermons. 

I have written to Mr. Belsham, whom T hope, some time or other, t» 
draw hither. He will tell you my scheme. But as I am soon going to 
Philadelphia, I shall soon know more on the subject. 

I was never more mortified than I now am at not having with me any of 
my small tracts in defence of the divine unity, as my being here leads 

many persons to wish to read what I have written on the subject. 

I shall reprint, them, and I flatter myself they will produce a considera- 
ble effect. Indeed my coming hither promises to be of much more service 
to our cause than I had imagined. But time is necessary, and 1 am apt to 
be too precipitate. I want your cool judgment. You waited patiently a 
long time in London ; but what an abundant harvest have vou had there.* 

J. PRIESTLEY. 

From the same to the same.f 

PnixAivELrHiA, June 24, 1794. 

With respect to religion, things are exactly in the same state here as 
in New-York. Nobody asks me to preach, and I hear there is much 
jealousy and dread of me ; and on the whole I am not sorry for the cir- 
cumstance, as it offends many who have, on this account, the greater de- 
sire to hear me ; so that I have little doubt, but that I shall form a re- 
spectable Unitarian society in this place. The alarm of the danger of 
Unitarianism has been sounded so long, that it has ceased to be terrific 
to many, and I stand so well with the country in other respects, that I 
dare say I shall have a fair and candid hearing ; and at my return from the 
Susquehannah, where I propose to go the next week, I believe some place 
will be prepared for me. In the mean time, I am preparing an edition of 
my Appeal and Trial of Elwall, which will be ready, I am told, by the next 
Monday. Part of the impression will be sent to New-York, where things 
are in as great forwardness as here. If I do not greatly deceive myself, I 
see a great harvest opening upon, and there is room for man} labourers, 
but it will require great prudence and judgment at first. 

I have almost determined to make mv residence in Northum- 



berland, and spend a few months of the winter in Philadelphia. 

I shall be, on the whole, of as much use in propagating Unitarianism, as 
if I resided in the town. 1 see so great certainty of planting Unitarianism 
on this continent, that I wish you and Mr. Bcbh:«m would be looking out 
for proper persons to establish in New-York and Philadelphia, and also 
to supply the College, which you may take for granted will be established 
at the place of my residence. A place of worship is building here by a 
society who call themselves Universalists. The societv, I hear, in- 
tend to apply to me to open it, which I shall gladly do. A person with 
a proper spirit and prudence may do great things here. Mr. II. was the 
most imprudent of men ; and did apparently much harm here ; but even- 
tually even that may be for the best. 1 find I have great advantages, and 
I hope to make a good use of them. 

J. PRIESTLEY.* 

* Memoirs, p. 530—532. \ Memoirs, p. 533. App. 

* Br. Priestley died at Northumberland, (Perm) Feb. 4, 1804. See 
Mem. p. 544, App. 



PUBLISHED AND SOLD BY SAMUEL T. ARMSTRONG, NO. 50, 
CORNHILL, BOSTON. 



REVIEW 



OF 



AMERICAN UNITARIANISM. 



[Extracted from tlie Panoplist.'] 



American Unitarianism; or a 
Brief History of '•'■the Pro- 
gress and Present State of the 
Unitarian Churches in Amer- 
ica. 1 * Comfiiled, from Docu- 
ments and Information commu- 
nicated by the Rev. James 
Freeman, 1). D, and Wil- 
liam Wells , jun. Esq. of 
Boston, and from other Unita- 
rian Gentlemen in this country, 
by the Rev. Thomas Bel- 
sham, Essex Street, London, 
Extracted from his "Memoirs 
of the Life of the Rev. 7he- 
ophilus LiNDSEr," printed 
in London, 1812, and now pub- 
lished for the benefit of Chris- 
tian Churches in this country, 
without note or alteration. 
Third Edition. Boston; Na- 
thaniel Willis. 1815. pp. 48. 

We regard the appearance of 
this pamphlet as one of the most 
important events, which have 
taken place for many years, in 
reference to the interests of reli- 
gion in our country. It has been 
known, for at least a quarter of a 
century, by those who have been 
well-informed on the subject, 
that there has been in Boston a 
defection from those doctrines 
of the Bible, which have usually 
been denominated orthodox in 
Protestant communities. It has 
been known, that this defection 
1 



has gradually increased; has si- 
lently and covertly extended it- 
self into a considerable number 
of congregations in the vicinity; 
and has been, in a few instances, 
openly avowed. From a great 
variety of anonymous publica- 
tions it has been evident, thai the 
defection had proceeded in the 
downward course to the lowest 
degrees of Socinianism, and to 
the very borders of open infidel- 
ity. Further than this; — it has 
not been in a few solitary instan- 
ces only, that persons, who have 
been near the centre of all these 
operations, have heard from the 
pulpit both sermons and prayers, 
which neither expressed nor im- 
plied any thing more than sober 
Deism, and which were totally 
at variance with the Gospel. 
These things, and many more of 
a similar character, have war- 
ranted such disclosures through 
the medium of our work, and of 
other publications, as have fully 
apprized the Christian public of 
the existence of such a defection, 
as has been briefly described 
above. But as the work of error 
was carried on for the most part 
in secret; — as many well-mean- 
ing people were led in the dark; 
— and as proselytes were made 
principally by suppressing truth, 
rather than by explicitly propos- 
ing and defending error, it was a 



2 



Complaints of the Boston Clergy. 



difficult matter so to expose the 
evil, as to present its character, 
extent, and design, in full view, 
before the eyes of its friends and 
its enemies. It has been an arti- 
fice practised systematically by 
a majority of the clergymen, 
who have led the way in this 
apostasy from the faith of the 
Protesiant churches, and, as we 
believe we may safely add, in 
this apostasy from Christianity, 
to inculcate the opinion, that they 
did not differ materially from 
their clerical brethren through 
the country. This artifice has 
been carried so far as to induce 
them to complain, in bitter 
terms, that they were slaudered 
by our work, when represented 
as thus differing, and as promot- 
ing the circulation of Socinian 
books; although every represen- 
tation, which we have made on 
the subject, has been warranted 
by most abundant evidence. 
They have complained, that they 
were not invited to preach when 
travelling through the country; 
and have imputed this neglect 
to the effect of slander. It is to 
be remembered, that the slander 
complained of is the allegation, 
that they differ essentially in re- 
ligions doctrine from the great 
body of the American clergy. 
Within a very few months, a 
clergyman, who we feel author- 
ized to say is a decided Socinian 
of the German school, complain- 
ed that he was net invited to 
preach in New York; which he 
imputed to the slanders of the 
orthodox: and yet, at the very 
time of making this complaint, 
he must have known, that his 
real opinions, if openly avowed, 
would exclude him from nearly 
every pulpit south of Massachu- 
setts. He must have known, 



also, that no representations, 
made by the orthodox, ever 
placed the Boston clergy, gen- 
erally, lower on the scale of reli- 
gious doctrine, than his own 
opinions actually were. 

We should not be thus par- 
ticular, were it not that the cry 
of calumny has been raised with 
considerable effect, and with the 
most unblushing confidence. But 
this cry cannot tie raised here- 
after on the same account, and 
in the same manner. The pam- 
phlet before us furnishes most 
decisive evidence, on the sub- 
ject of the state of religion in 
Boston and the vicinity. It is 
evidence which can neither be 
evaded, nor resisted, by the lib- 
eral party; as it is taken wholly 
from a book, published by Mr. 
Belsham, who is at the head of 
that party in England, and who 
lays before the reader original 
letters from Dr. Freeman and 
Mr. Wells, authenticated by 
their proper names. 

It will be asked, perhaps, what 
is the meaning of Umtarianism, 
as the word is used in this pam- 
phlet? The inquiry is natural; 
and we answer it as fo.lows. Mr. 
Bclsham considers himself a con- 
sistent and decided Unitarian. 
He evidently supposes, also, that 
all consistent and decided Unita- 
rians, on both sides of the water, 
agree substantially with him. 
That the reader may become 
acquainted with Mr. Belsham's 
opinions, we shall quote his own 
words. The length of the quo- 
tations wiil be excused, when 
the importance of the subject is 
considered. 

The publisher of the pamphlet 
has introduced it with a very 
suitable preface, containing large 
extracts from Belsham's Review 



Unitarian Creed by Mr. Btlsham. 



3 



4>f Wilberforcc's Treatise. The 
greater part of these extracts we 
shall cite below, and add to them 
several passages from Mr. Bel- 
sham'* Calm Inquiry and Me- 
moirs of Lindsey. 

" "God is the Former, the Father, and 
Benefactor of the human race, whom for 
■wise reasons, unknown to us, but perfectly 
consistent, no doubt, with his magnificent 
plan of universal order and happiness, he 
has been pleased to place in circumstances 
of frailty and danger, the natural conse- 
quence of which, in their progress through 
life, is the contraction of a certain degree 
of moral pollution, which in the nature of 
things, and by the divine appointment, 
exposes them to a proportionate degree of 
misery here or hereafter. 

" "But this fact by no means proves a 
preponderance of vice and misery in the 
world; otherwise we must conclude that 
the Maker of the world, whose character 
we learn only from his works, is a weak or 
a malignant being. The truth is, that al- 
though the quantity of vice and misery 
actually existing is very considerable, 
there is, nevertheless, upon the whole, a 
very great preponderance of good in gen- 
eral, and with t'cw, if any exceptions, in 
every individual in particular. 

" "The almost universal desire of life 
and dread of dissolution, amount to a 
strong presumption, that life is in general 
a blessing. And the disgrace universnily 
attached to flagrant vice, proves that such 
vice is not common. Chai aeteris the sum 
total of moral and intellectual habits, and 
the proportion of virtuous habits in t'.ie 
worst characters, exceeds that of vicious 
ones. But no character takes the de- 
nomination of virtuous unless all the hab- 
its are on the side of virtue: whereas one 
evil habit is sufficient to stamp a character 
vicious. 

" "God cannot be unjust to any of his 
creatures. Having brought men into ex- 
istence and placed them in circumstances 
of imminent peril, though in the nature of 
things misery is necessarily connected 
with vice, we may certainly conclude that 
none of the creatures of God in such, or 
in any circumstances, wiil ever be made 
eternally miserable. Indeed it is plainly 
repugnant to the justice of God, that ex- 
istence to any of his intelligent creatures, 
should be upon the whole a curse. 

" "The light of philosophy affords a 
few plausible arguments for the doctrine 
of a future life: there are some appearan- 
ces physical and moral, which cannot be 
satisfactorily explained upon any other 
supposition. But since the sentient pow- 



ers are suspended by death, and admit of 
no revival but by the revival of the man, 
a fact the expectation of which is entirely 
unsupported both by experience and anal- 
ogy, the speculations of philosophy would 
commonly, and almost necessarily, termi- 
nate in the disbelief of a future existence. 

" "Here divine revelation offers its sea- 
sonable and welcome aid. God has com- 
missioned his faithful and holy servant, 
Jesus of Nazareth, to teach the universal 
resurrection of the dead, and by his own 
resurrection to confirm and exemplify his 
doctrine. 

«« "Jesus hath authoritatively taught, 
that the wicked will be l-aised to suffering: 
nor could it possibly he otherwise, if they 
are to be raised with the same system of 
habits and feelings with which they de- 
scended to the grave, and without which 
their identity would be lost. But since 
eternal misery for temporary crimes is 
inconsistent with every principle of jus- 
tice, and since a resurrection from previ- 
ous insensibility to indefinite misery, to be 
succeeded by absolute a::».ihilation, is a 
harsh supposition, contrary to all analogy, 
and not to be admitted but upon the clear- 
est evidence, we are naturally led to con- 
clude, that the .sufferings of the wicked 
will be remedial, and that they will termi- 
nate in a complete purHiei.tion from moral 
disorder, and in their ultimate restoration 
to virtue a*.d happiness. In this conclu- 
sion we seem to be justified by those pas- 
sages in the apostolical writings which de- 
clare, that the blessings of the Gospel 
shall be far more extensive than the ca- 
lamities of the fall, and that Christ shall 
reign till all things --.hall be subdued unto 
him. (Rom v. — 1 Cor. xv.) 

" "I he apostles were commanded to 
preach the Gospel to the idolatrous hea- 
then as well as to the chosen family of 
Abraham, and they were authorized to 
confirm their doctrine by miracles. These 
extraordinary powers are in the Scrip- 
tures called the Spirit of God, and the 
Holy Spirit; and the great change which 
took place in the views, feelings, and 
character of pharisaic Jews end idolatrous 
heathen, when they sincerely professed 
the Christian faith, is culled, a new crea- 
tion, regeneration, rising from the dead, 
and the like. And as conversion to Chris- 
tianity was usually produced by the evi- 
dence of miracles, this new creation, re- 
generation, sanctiiication, or passing fro i 
death to life, is in this sense ascribed to 
the Spirit of God. 

" " The Jews, having been chosen by 
God to peculiar priv'leges, entertained a 
very high notion of their -iwn dignity, and 
expressed themselves in the most con- 
temptuous language of the idolatrous gen- 
tiles, who were not in covenant with 



4 



Unitarian Creed by Mr. Belsham. 



hovah. Of themselves they spoke as a 
chosen and a holy nation, sons of God, 
and heirs of the promises. But the hea- 
thens were represented as sinners, as 
aliens, as enemies to God, and the like. 
In allusion to which forms of expression, 
the converted gentiles being entitled 
equally with converted Jews, to the bles- 
sings of the new dispensation, they are 
therefore said to be forgiven, reconciled, 
and saved, to be felloiv-citizens with the 
saints, and of the household of God. 

" "The death of Jesus is sometimes 
called a propitiation, because it put an 
end to the Mosaic economy, and intro- 
duced a new and more liberal dispensa- 
tion, under which the gentiles, who were 
before regarded as enemies, are admitted 
into a state of amity and reconciliation; 
that is, into a state of privilege similar to 
tlxat of the Jews. It is also occasionally 
oalled a sacrifice, being the ratification of 
that new covenant into which God is 
pleased to enter with his human offspring, 
by which a resurrection to immortal life 
and happiness is promised, without dis- 
tinction, to all who are truly virtuous. 
Believers in Christ are also said to have 
redemption through his blood, because 
they are released by the Christian cove- 
nant from the yoke of the ceremonial 
la a-, and from the bondage of idolatry. 
Dr. Taylor has in general well explained 
these Jewish phrases in his admirable 
Key to the apostolic writings prefixed to 
his Commentary on the Epistle to the 
Romans. 

*f "The Scriptures contain a faithful and 
credible account of the Christian doctrine, 
which is the true xvord of God: bit they 
are not themselves the word of God, nor 
do they ever assume that title: and it is 
highly improper to speak of them as such, 
as it leads inattentive readers to suppose 
they were written under a plenary inspir- 
ation, to which they make no pretension, 
and as such expressions expose Christian- 
ity unnecessarily to the cavils of unbe- 
lievers. 

" "Christianity sums up the whole of 
human duty in the love of God and our 
neighbor; and requiring that all our time 
should be employed to the best account, 
and that every action should b^; conse- 
crated to God, lays no stress upon ritual 
observations, and expressly abolishes that 
distinction of days, which formed so con - 
spicuous a feature in the Mosaic institute. 
To a true Christian every day is a Sub- 
bath, every place is a temple, and every 
action of life an act of devotion. A Chris- 
tian is not required to be more holy, nor 
permitted to lake greater liberties upon 
one day than upon another. Whatever 
is lawful or expedient upon one day of the 
week is, uuuer the Christian dispensation, 



equally lawful and expedient on any other 
day. Public worship, however, must be 
conducted at stated intervals; and it has 
been usual for the earliest times for 
Christians to assemble together, on the 
first day of the week, to commemorate 
the death and to celebrate the resurrec- 
tion of their Master. 

" "Ihis appears to me to be the true 
doctrine of reason and revelation, in winch 
the God of nature is not represented as 
frowning over his works, and like a mer- 
ciless tyrant dooming his helpless crea- 
tures to eternal misery, with the arbitrary 
exception of a chosen few; but as the wise, 
benevolent, and impartial parent of his 
rational offspring, who is training them all, 
under various processes of intellectual 
and moral discipline, to perfect virtue 
and everlasting felicity. Such is the God 
of my faith and adoration, the God of na- 
ture and of revelation, the God and Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that God whose 
existence, attributes, and government are 
the joy and confidence of every enlighten- 
ed and virtuous believer." " See Bel- 
shaaCs Review of IVilberforce's Treatise, 
Letter II. 

"The Unitarians generally believe, that 
Jesus having exercUed his public ministry 
for the space of a year, and perhaps a little 
more, suffered death puhiicly upon the 
cross, not to appease the wrath of God, 
not as a satisfaction to divine justice, not 
to exhibit the evil of sin, nor in any sense 
whatever to make an atonement to God 
for it; for this doctrine in every sense, 
and according to every explanation, they 
explode as irrational, uuscriptura!, and 
derogatory from the divine perfections: 
hut as a martyr to the truth, and as a 
necessary preliminary to his resurrection. 
And they hold, that it was wisely ordered, 
to preclude cavils, that his death should 
be an event of great public notoriety, and 
inflicted by his enemies." See Belsham' 's 
Calm Inquiry into the Scripture Doc- 
trine concerning the person of Christ, 
pp. 449, 45U. 

"The Unitarians further believe, that 
after having given sufficient proofs to his 
disciples, for forty days, of the truth of 
his resurrection, he was in a miraculous 
manner withdrawn from their society, a 
circumstance which is described as an as- 
cension into heaven." lb. pp. 450, 451. 

"The Unitarians maintain, that Jesus 
and his apostles were supematurally in- 
structed as far as was necessary for the 
execution of their commission, that is, tor 
the revelation and proof of the doctrine of 
eternal life, and that the favor of God ex- 
tended to ihe Gentiles equally with the 



Unitarian Creed by Mr. Belsham. 



3 



Jews; and that Jesus and his apostles, and 
others of the primitive believers, were 
occasionally insured to foretell future 
events. But the}- believe, that supernat- 
ural inspiration was limited to these cases 
alone; aud that when Jesus or his apostles 
deliver opinions upon subjects unconnect- 
ed with the object of their mission, such 
opinions and their reasonings upon them, 
are to be received with the same atten- 
tion and caution with those of other per- 
sons in similar circumstances, of similar 
education, and with similar habits ol think- 
ing. 

"The Unitarians admit, that the Scrip- 
tures of the Old find New Testament, and 
especially the latter, contain authentic 
records of facts, and of divine interposi- 
tions; but they utterly deny the univer- 
sal inspiration of the writers of those 
compositions, as a qualification to which 
indeed thev make no pretension, and of 
which the\ offer r.o proof; and the asser- 
tion of which teuds only to embarrass tLe 
evidences of revelation, and to give ad- 
vantage to its enemies. And they judge 
of the genuineness, of the meaning, and 
of the credibility of these works, exactly 
in the same way as they judge of any 
other ancient writings." "lb. pp. 451,452. 

"The Unitarians disavow all those per- 
sonal regards to Christ, and direct ad- 
dresses to him, either of prayer or praise, 
which properly fall under the denomina- 
tion of religious worship, as unfounded in 
reason, unauthorized by Scripture, de- 
rogatory from the honor of the Supreme 
Being, the only proper object of religious 
homage, and as in a strict and proper 
sense polytheistical and idolatrous." lb. 
p. 454. 

"The Unitarians think it superfluous to 
produce any arguments to prove, that a 
person, who is repeatedly called a man, 
who had every appearance of a human 
being, who was born, who grew, who liv- 
ed, who conversed, who felt, who acted, 
who suffered, and who died like other 
men, who was universally believed to be 
a man by all who saw and conversed with 
him, and was addressed and spoken of as 
a human being by all his contemporaries, 
whether friends or enemies, was really 
what he appeared and affirmed himself to 
be, truly and properly a man, and nothing- 
more than a man." lb. pp. 455, 456. 

"They observe, that there is no allusion 
at all to the supposed pre-existent state 
and superior nature of Jesus Christ, in 
three of the Evangelists, or in the history 
of the apostles' preaching, and of the first 
plantation of the Goipel contained in the 



Ats of the Apostles; and that John is a 
very mystical writer, abounding in harsh 
metaphors and symbolical phraseology, 
very different from the simplicity which 
characterizes the other evangelists. Nor 
can they discern any traces of that sur- 
prise and astonishment, which must have 
seized the minds of the disciples and com- 
pan.ons of Jesus, when it was first reveal- 
ed to them, that the master with whom 
they had so frequently and familiarly con- 
versed, was the Lord their Maker, or at 
least a -great celestial spirit in a human 
shape." pp. 456, 457. 

"The Unitarians do not presume to 
say that God might not, if he had pleased, 
have revealed other doctrines to mankind 
by Jesus Christ, besides that most impor- 
tant one of a future life. But they pro- 
fess, that after reading the New Testa- 
ment with the greatest attention,, this 
doctrine appears to be the one great ob- 
ject of the Christian revelation, which is 
in this view most worthy of God, and most 
beneficial to men." p. 470. 

"Believing that Jesus was in all respects 
like unto his brethren, and pursuing his 
principles to their just consequences, he 
[Dr. Priestley] argued that our Savior 
came into the world with the frailties 
and infirmities of a human being,, moral 
as well as physical, and that, by the pecu- 
liar process of mental discipline to which 
he was subjected, he grew tip to that 
consummate dignity and elevation of char- 
acter, under which he appears in the 
writings of the Evangelists. And this 
truly Christian philosopher believed it to 
be not only a more rational way of ac- 
counting for the excellence of our Lord's 
character, and more agreeable to the 
language of the New Testament, which 
represents him as growing in wisdom and 
in favor with God and man, but, in truth, 
more honorable to our Lord himself, that 
his perfect moral excellence should be the 
result of his own exertion, vigilance, and 
fortitude, rather than of a supernatural 
operation." See lielsham's Memoirs of 
Lindsey, pp. 225, 226. 

"In the present day, the alarm having 
subsided, and a cooler examination ot the 
subject having taken place, it Mould, 1 be- 
lieve, be hard to find any considerate and 
consistent Unitarian, who does not adopt 
Dr. L\ieM ley's ideas concerning the for- 
mation of our Lord's moral character." 
lb. p. 226. 

"The Unitarian doctrine is, that Jesus 
of Nazareth was a man constituted in ::11 
respects like other men, subject to the 



6 



Mr. Lindseys Creed. 



same infirmities, the same ignorance, pre- 
judices, and frailties." lb. as quoted by 
Dr. Magee, in his great -work, p. 510. 

«' "Jesus is indeed now alive. But as we 
are totally ignorant of the place where he 
resides, and of the occupations in which 
he is engaged, there can be no proper 
foundation for religious addresses to him, 
nor of gratitude for favors now received, 
nor yet of confidence in his future inter- 
position in our behalf." " See Review of 
WUberforce's Treatise, Letter VII J. 

MB. IJKDSEl's CREED. 

" "There is Ose God, one single per- 
son who is God, the sole Creator and 
Sovereign Lord of all things. 

" "The holy Jesus was a man of the 
Jewish nation, a servant of this God, 
highly honored and distinguished by him. 

" "The Spirit, or Holy Spirit, was not 
a person or intelligent being, but only the 
extraordinary power or gift of God, first 
to our Lord Jesus Christ himself in his 
life time, and afterwards to the Apostles 
and many of the first Christians, to em- 
power them to preach and propagate the 
Gospel with success." " See Memoirs of 
L,indsey, p. 212. 

The foregoing quotations are 
sufficient to give the reader some 
acquaintance with the religious 
opinions of leading Unitarians. 
We will only add, that Mr. Bel- 
sham clearly adopts the opinion 
of Dr. Priestley, that "our Sa- 
vior was as much in the dark, as 
the most vulgar among the Jews, 
about possessions; and believed 
them in the gross literal sense." 

Our readers will excuse us, 
if, for the sake of making a 
brief summary of doctrines held 
by Unitarians, as exhibited in 
the preceding extracts, we give 
the substance of the several arti- 
cles by way of recapitulation. 
Unitarians hold and teach, then, 

That God has placed man in 
circumstances of frailty and dan- 
ger, the natural consequence of 
which is the contraction of a cer- 
tain degree of moral pollution, 
which exposes them to a propor- 



tionate degree of misery here or 
hereafter; 

That there is a very great 
preponderance of virtue over 
vice in the world; and with few, 
if any, exceptions, in every indi- 
vidual; 

That the proportion of virtu- 
ous habits in the worst charac- 
ters, exceeds that of vicious 
ones; 

That we may certainly con- 
clude, from our own reason, that 
none of the creatures of God 
will ever be made eternally mis- 
erable; 

That God commissioned Je- 
sus of Nazareth to teach the 
universal resurrection of the 
dead, and by his own resurrec- 
tion to confirm and exemplify 
his doctrine; 

That the wicked will be rais- 
ed to suffering, with the same 
system of habits and feelings 
with which they descended to 
the grave; but their sufferings 
will be remedial, and will ter- 
minate in their ultimate restora- 
tion to virtue and happiness; 

That the Holy Spirit was noth- 
ing more than the power of 
working miracies; 

That regeneration, and the 
new creation, mean only the con- 
version of the Gentiles to the 
profession of Christianity; 

That as the Gentiles were 
converted to Christianity by tlie 
evidence of miracles, this new 
creation was in this sense as- 
cribed to the Spirit of God; 

That because the Gentiles 
were admitted to enjoy the bles- 
sings of the new dispensation, 
they are said to be forgiven, re- 
conciled and saved; 

That the death of Jesus is call- 
ed a /irofiitialion because it put 



Recapitulation of these Creeds. 



an end to the Mosaic economy; 

That it is called a sacrifice, be- 
cause it was the ratification of a 
new covenant, which promised a 
resurrection to immortal life; 

That believers in Christ are 
said to have redemjition by his 
blood, because they are released 
from the yoke of the ceremoni- 
al law, and the bondage of idola- 
try; 

That the Scriptures were not 
written under a plenary inspira- 
tion; 

That the Sabbath is no more 
holy than any other day; and, 
consequently, that it is lawful to 
do the same things on that day 
as on any other; 

That Christ made no atone- 
ment for sin, in any sense what- 
ever; 

That the great object of Chris- 
tianity was the revelation of a fu- 
ture life; 

That whenever Jesus, or his 
apostles, deliver opinions on sub- 
jects unconnected with the ob- 
ject of their mission, their opin- 
ions are to be received with the 
same caution as the opinions of 
other persons; 

That the Scriptures contain 
authentic records of facts and of 
divine interpositions, but were 
not written by men under the 
constant influence of inspiration; 

That all religious homage 
paid to Christ is strictly polythe- 
istical and idolatrous; 

That Christ was no more than 
a man; 

That he came into the world 
with all the frailties and infirmi- 
ties of a human being, moral as 
well as physical, and his perfect 
moral character was formed by 
his own exertion, vigilance, and 
fortitude, without supernatural 
aid; 



That after his resurrection he 
was miraculously withdrawn 
from his disciples, which was 
described as an ascension to 
Heaven; but we know not where 
he resides now, and ought not to 
feel gratitude to him for favors 
now received, nor to expect his 
future interposition in our be- 
half; and 

That, on the subject of de- 
moniacal possessions in particu- 
lar, he, like the mass of his na- 
tion was involved in gross dark- 
ness, and actually believed that 
to be true, which the wisdom of 
modern times has discovered to 
be false. 

Such is the Unitarianism 
which Mr. Belsham wishes to 
propagate, and of which he pro- 
fesses to write the history; so 
far, at least, as relates to its 
progress in this country. Of 
the existence of such Unitarian- 
ism, in the metropolis of New- 
England, our readers have gen- 
erally been well persuaded; but 
some have net believed that it 
was making any considerable 
progress, because they could 
not persuade themselves that 
men, occupying important pla- 
ces in church and state, and 
standing high in the public esti- 
mation were capable of conceal- 
ing their true sentiments. Oth- 
ers have affected not to believe, 
because they feared the conse- 
quences of an exposure of senti- 
ments so very diverse from those 
maintained by our pious fathers, 
and still cherished by a great 
majority of pastors and church- 
es in the New England states. 
Some of our friends at a dis- 
tance, who sit under their own 
vine and fig tree without moles- 
tation, occasionally feel, that our 
fears respecting the efforts to 



8 



Necessity of Religious Controversy* 



spread Socinian principles are 
magnified beyond measure, in 
consequence of our living in the 
centre of Unitarian action. We 
almost envy them their peace- 
ful undisturbed lot. One of the 
last things, which a Christian 
should desire, is, to be called to 
dispute with his fellow men, 
who bear the Christian name, 
'respecting that blessed religion, 
which proclaims /zeac<? on earth, 
and breathes good will to man. 
Yet, however distressing this 
duty is, and however exposed to 
temptation one may be in per- 
forming it; there are times when 
the obligation becomes imperi- 
ous, to contend earnestly for the 
faith once delivered to the saints-; 
and to place in their just light 
the efforts of those, whom we 
in conscience believe to be real- 
ly striving to overturn this faith, 
whatever they may suppose to 
be the tendency of their meas- 
ures. 

There is a certain class of 
well-meaning people, who are 
reluctant to enter upon any con- 
troversial discussion, and who 
are ready to say, on all occasions, 
that they are sorry to see reli- 
gious controversy. These per- 
sons ought to reflect much upon 
the meaning of such declara- 
tions. Do they intend, that the 
essential truths of the Gospel 
will never be attacked; or that, 
if attacked, they should never 
be defended; or that there are 
no essential truths of the Gos- 
pel; or that, if there are such 
truths, it is impossible to ascer- 
tain what they are; or that error 
will die of itself, if never expos- 
ed. If they will assume either 
of these positions, they will find 
it untenable. They ought to 
consult the history of the church> 



which will convince them, that 
the purity of religion has never 
been restored, in a single in- 
stance, without religious contro- 
versy; and that it has never 
been preserved, for any length 
of time, without resorting to the 
same means of defence. We 
readily admit, that there has 
been much unnecessary, and 
much very pernicious contro- 
versy in the church; that long 
and bitter disputes have origina- 
ted on trifling occasions, and 
been conducted with unchristian 
feeljngs, and for very insufficient 
reasons, on both ..sides. All this 
is a proof ot human weakness 
and depravity; but we see not 
how it tends to prove that all 
controversies are wrong, as it 
respects all the contending par- 
ties 

Political disputes have, in a 
vast proportion of instances, been 
the means of incalculable evil. 
Yet who supposes it to be wrong 
to oppose political error? Would 
not the suppression of all politi- 
cal controversy bring the world 
immediately into a state of the 
most abject submission to the 
most corrupt and despotic rulers? 
The fact is, that important truth 
of every kind, whether scientific, 
political, moral, or religious, 
must be taught and defended; but 
particularly religious truth; for 
the natural feelings of men are 
much more opposed to this, than 
to truth of any other kind. We 
are far from considering contro- 
versy of any sort as in itseli de- 
sirable; we are far from justify- 
ing a disputatious temper, or en- 
couraging dogmatical habits; we 
could earnestly wish, indeed, 
that the Christian world were 
immediately freed from all occa- 
sion of controversy. The time 



Necessity of Religious Controversy. 



will eorae when controversy shall 
cease; but this time will not be 
hastened by the timid counsels 
of those, who would suffer the 
abettors of false doctrine to re- 
peat their assertions and their 
sophistry without examination 
and without an answer. Con- 
troversy will only cease by the 
universal reception of the truth, 
not by a complaisant deference 
to be exercised by the friends of 
truth to the promoters of all 
kinds of error. One great com- 
plaint of the Papists against the 
leading Protestants, at the com- 
mencement of the Reformation, 
was, that they introduced the 
terrible evil of religious contro- 
versy. Wnat wouk 1 have become 
of the Reformation, if that com- 
plaint had been admitted as valid, 
and the Reformers had shut 
their mouths and thrown away 
iheir pens? It maybe confidently 
affirmed, that Luther, Calvin, 
and Zuinglius, with the word of 
God in their hands and the love 
of God in their hearts, did mere 
good in a few years, by entering 
boldly into the lists of theologi- 
cal controversy* than the same 
men with all their great talents 
could have done in fifty centu- 
ries, (had their lives been thus 
prolonged,) in the silent course 
recommended by those, who af- 
fect to decry all controversy. 
Is not the truth as important now 
as it was at the era of the Refor- 
mation? Is not Christ as pre- 
cious to the souls of believers 
now as he was then? 

Before any person is entitled 
to stigmatize a controversial 
writing as useless or injurious, 
he must be satisfied, either that 
their is no occasion for it; that 
it relates to an unimportant sub- 
ject; that it defends error rather 
2 



than the truth; or that it is con- 
ducted in an unfair manner, or 
with an unchristian temper. 
When a controversy can be truly 
described as liable to either of 
these objections, we will not 
justify it. But we shall always 
hold in high honor those servants 
of God, who have it in their pow- 
er to employ learning and talents 
not only in teaching the truth, 
but in detecting and exposing 
the absurdities of error. 

We are sincere believers in 
the great doctrines of the Refor- 
mation; in the inspiration of the 
Holy Scriptures; in the unity and 
perfections of the Godhead; in the 
Supreme divinity of the Son and 
Spirit; in the atonement and in- 
tercession of Christ; in the native 
and total depravity of the unre- 
generatej and in the reality and 
necessity of special divine grace 
to renew and sanctify the souls 
of men, that they may be capable 
of participating in the holy enjoy- 
ments of the heavenly world. 
These points do not constitute 
the whole of our creed, but they 
are among the prominent and 
fundamental articles of it; they 
are points in which we differ 
essentially from Unitarians. 

Believing conscientiously, that 
these doctrines are essential to 
Christianity, we have ever felt 
it to be our duty to resist, so 
far as lay in our power, every 
effort to supplant them, by sub- 
stituting others, which, as they 
appear to us, can neither admin- 
ister present comfort, nor lay 
any just foundation for future 
hopes. We readily concede, 
that Christianity in any form, 
even in that of Catholic supersti- 
tion, or the lowest Socinianism, 
is preferable, in a civil point of 
view, \9 Deism? or Atheism- 



10 



Unitarianism in Massachusetts. 



Even in its most degraded forms, 
Christianity superadds some- 
thing to the moral restraints of 
men; and impresses in some de- 
gree the doctrine of future re- 
tribution. So far as this goes, 
it is an advantage to the commu- 
nity. But so •far as the vital, 
evangelical spirit of Christianity 
is rejected, or contemned, just 
so faf the prospect that religion 
will have a benign influence on 
society is obscured. If a denial 
of the divinity and atonement of 
the Savior, be denying the Lord 
that bought us, then, whatever 
character a man who does this 
may sustain among his fellow 
creatures, in the sight of God 
he is an unbeliever; and whatever 
may be the degree of his guilt 
and punishment, he is as surely 
exposed to final destruction, as 
the Atheist, or the Deist. 

It has always appeared to us, 
that the divinity and atonement 
of the Savior are essential doc- 
trines in the Christian System; 
not as subjects of speculation 
only, but as practical truths. 
Such being the fact we cannot 
help believing, that those, who 
reject and contemn these doc- 
trines, have not a fair claim to 
be considered as standing on 
Christian ground. It is a sor- 
rowful thing to be compelled to 
say, that there are now many 
persons, in the capital of New 
England, and not a few in its 
vicinity, who utterly reject the 
doctrines in question, and many 
others, essentially, if not equally, 
important. The Pamphlet be- 
fore us offers evidence on this 
subject, which it is impossible 
to mistake. 

Had the facts, which this pam- 
phlet discloses, been stated on 
the authority of an orthodox 



man, we should doubtless have 
been met at the threshold, with 
the allegation of "party spirit 
and misrepresentation." No or- 
thodox man could ever have 
hoped for such materials to com- 
pile a history as ars here pre- 
sented. The writer has not 
gathered his information from a 
hasty survey of the exterior 
of the temple, which he de- 
scribes; he has had access, as 
high priest of his order, to the 
very interior recesses, and has 
exposed to view the most secret 
transactions of those, who are in- 
itiated into the worship which 
he approves. He has shewn us, 
that like the Grecian philoso- 
phers of old, many of his order, 
in our country, would have one 
religion for the vulgar, and a- 
nother for the wise; that it is a 
fundamental maxim among the 
great body of leading Unitarians 
here, not to expose their senti- 
ments directly to the inspection 
of the world at large, and to chal- 
lenge investigation, but to oper- 
ate in secret; to entrust only the 
initiated with their measures; 
and to leave the vulgar to fall 
into the tracks of the wise, by 
the force of that principle of im- 
itation which is capable of oper- 
ating so powerfully upon them. 
Our own convictions respect- 
ing the nature of Unitarianism 
in Massachusetts, and the man- 
ner in which the cause is pro- 
moted, are not altered by the 
pamphlet before us. Living in 
the centre of action; we have 
long had these convictions. The 
Monthly Anthology; the man- 
gled Christian Monitor; the 
Hymns and Psalms of Mr. Buck- 
minster and Mr. Emerson; the 
reply of Belsham to Wilberforce 
and to Dr. J. P. Smith; the Im- 



Unitarianism in Massachusetts. 



li 



proved Version of the New Tes- 
tament; all published in Boston; 
and especially the General Re- 
pository, published at Cam- 
bridge, by some of the Officers 
of Harvard College, afford suffi- 
cient evidence, without detailing 
other circumstances, of a settled 
and persevering determination 
to prostrate orthodoxy, and to 
substitute Unitarianism in its 
place. But the evidence now 
before us is in some respects 
more important than any which 
has preceded it; as it is compris- 
ed within a small compass, is 
easily obtained, and is supported 
by the names of some of the 
principal parties concerned. 

The Society which claims the 
honor of taking the lead, in the 
great work of reformation in our 
country, is, according to our his- 
torian, that which meets at the 
Stone Chapel in Boston; and Dr. 
Freeman, it seems, claims to be 
considered as at the bottom of 
all the revolutions, which have 
taken place there. So early as 
the year 1786, Dr. Freeman had 
persuaded his church to adopt a 
Liturgy, which the Rev. J. 
Smith, in a letter to Mr. Lindsey, 
describes as "perfectly Unitari- 
an," (p. 11.) Dr. Freeman, 
however, in a letter, dated the 
same year, tells Mr. Lindsey, 
that "some defects and impro- 
prieties are stili retained, for the 
sake of inducing them, (his con- 
gregation,) to omit the most ex- 
ceptionable parts of the old ser- 
vice, the Athanasian prayers." 
(p. 12.) In 1811, however, a 
new edition of his Liturgy was 
published by Dr. Freeman, 
which, "with a very few altera- 
tions chiefly verbal, might be 
made," says Mr. Belsham, "per- 
fectly unexceptionable." p. 12. 



Dr. Freeman, it seems, was 
unable, on account of his hereti- 
cal sentiments, to obtain Episco- 
pal ordination. ThismisfortURe 
was obviated, however, by his 
congregation, who, it should be 
remembered, still professed to 
be Episcopalians. They ordain- 
ed him themselves, on Sunday 
the 18th of Nov. 1787. 

Shortly after, a circumstance 
happened, which as Dr. F. de- 
clares in a letter to Mri Lindsey, 
tended ^very much to satisfy the 
minds of his people, respecting 
the manner oi his ordination. 

" "I mentioned in a former letter, Ui* 
Bishop Seabury had ordained a priest i'u 
Boston. The members of my congrega- 
tion in general attended. They were so 
shocked with the service, particularly 
with that part where the bishop pretends 
to communic&te the Holy Ghost and the 
power of forgiving sins which he accom- 
panied with the action of breathing on the 
candidate, that they now congratulate me 
upon having escaped what they consider 
as little short of blasphemy: Few of them 
had ever read, or at least attentively con- 
sidered, the Ordination service. Since 
they have heard it, I have frequently- 
been seriously asked by them, whether I 
would have submitted to so absurd a form. 
1 confess that I am convinced I should have 
acted wrong if I had done it. I shudder 
when I reflect to what moral danger lex- 
posed myself in soliciting ordination of the 
American bishops, for I certainly never 
believed that they had the power of con- 
veying the Holy Spirit." " pp. 14, 15. 

Thus much for the history of 
Unitarianism at the Stone Chap- 
el. This congregation is after- 
wards described in the pamphlet, 
as being the only one of profess- 
ed Unitarians in New England. 
We must say, that the conduct 
of this Society and of their min- 
ister, in coming out openly, and 
avowing their sentiments to the 
world, is vastly preferable to 
a hypocritical concealment of 
them. Had other societies fol- 
lowed their example, we should 



12 



Extract from Dr. Freeman's Letter. 



Jong since have known with 
whom we were contending; and 
not have been obliged to guard 
against ambushes, instead of 
combating in the open field. 

From Dr. Freeman, so open 
and ingenuous in the profession 
of his sentiments, much of the 
information in our historical 
pamphlet is derived, as to the 
progress of Unitarianism in 
America. This father and apos- 
tle of the sect in question., in this 
country, seems to be more deep- 
ly interested, and better inform- 
ed on the subject, than any other 
man, who appears in Mr. Bei- 
sham's pages. From him we 
learn, that in 1789, in conse- 
quence of the labors Qf Mr, 
Hazlitt among the Boston cler- 
gy, there were already "many 
churches in which the m$m ship 
was strictly Unitarian." p. 13. 
A f ote> 

The method in which Dr.- F. 
and others labor to propagate 
Unitarianism is thus graphically 
delineated, in a letter to Mr. 
Lindsey, written us it would 
seem, in 1796, or 1797. 

" "J consider it," says this intelligent 
correspondent to his venerable friend, "as 
one of the most happy effects -which have 
resulted from my feeble exertions in the 
Unitarian cause, that they have introduced 
me to the knowledge and friendship of 
some of the most valuable characters of 
the present oge; men of enlightened 
heads, of pious and benevolent hearts; 
quibuscumvivere amem, quibuacum obir'e 
lebens. 

" "Though it is a standing article cf 
most of our social libraries, that nothing of 
a controversial nature should be purchas- 
ed, yet any book -which is presented is 
freely accepted. I have found means, 
therefore, of introducing into them some 
of the Unitarian Tracts with which you 
have kindly furnished me. There "are 
few persons who have not read them 
with avidity; and when read, they cannot 
tail to make an impression upon the 
minds of many. Fiom these and other 
causes, the Unitarian dottrine swears to 



be still upon the increase. I am acquaint- 
ed with a number of ministers, particular. 
ly in Uie southern part ot this state, 
who avow and publicly preach this senti- 
ment. There are others more cautious, 
who content themselves with leading 
their hearers, by a course, of rational but 
prudent sermons, gradually and insensibly 
to embrace it. Though this latter mode 
is not what I entirely approve, yet it pro- 
duces good effects. 'For the people are 
thus kept out of the reach of false opinions, 
and are prepared for the impressions 
which will be made on them by more bold 
and ardent successors, who will probably 
be raised up when these timid characters 
are removed off the stage. In the eastern 
part of this State, or what is called the 
District of Maine, the Unitarian doctrine 
also makes progress, as I have just been 
informed by a worthy and judicious min- 
ister from that quarter. The Clergy are 
generally the first who begin to speculate: 
but the people soon follow, w here they are 
so much accustomed to read and inquire. 
" "In the accounts which I give jou of 
the state of religious opinions in this coun- 
try, I always endeavor not to exaggerate, 
sensible that every zealous man (and I 
confess that I am zealous) is naturally dis- 
posed to rate his own party as highly as 
he can. It is possible that Unitarianism 
may be losing ground in one quarter while 
it is gaining it in another, and that I may 
not perceive or may not attend to the 
former. Indeed, I confess and lament 
that the opinion is scarcely known in the 
largest part of this vast Republic. It 
flourishes chiefly in New England; but not 
much in Connecticut, Rhode Island, New 
Hampshire, and the western counties of 
Massachusetts. A few seeds have been 
sown in Vermont, and an abundant harvest 
has been produced in the vicinity of Bos- 
ton and the counties directly south of it. 
In Pennsylvania, much may be expected 
from the labors of Dr. * Priestley." " 
pp. 22, 23. 

How far the sentiments in 
question have spread in Boston, 
has been often a subject of in- 
quiry, and not unfrequently of 
debate. Mr. Belsham will in- 
form us. "If," says he, "I am 
not greatly misinformed, divine 
worship in many of the firincifial 
churches at Boston, is carried on 
upon principles strictly, if not 
avowedly, Unitarian." p. 38. 

If any thing be Jacking in Mr. 
Belsham's account, it is suppli- 



Letter of William Wells, jun. Esq. 



Ii 



ed in a letter to him by William 
Wells, Esq. of Boston, a gentle- 
man, who, from his extensive ac- 
quaintance with books and men, 
and his distinguished zeal in the 
cause of Unitarianism, may well 
be supposed to give us as exact 
a picture, as any man living could 
draw. We print the whole let- 
ter, as we shall have occasion to 
refer to it on various subjects. 



From William Wells, Esq. of Boston, in 
JVe-w England, to the Author. 

Boston, March 21, 1812. 
"My dear Sir, 

I am glad to hear you received the Ser- 
mons safe. About six weeks ago I for- 
warded to Mr. Freroe a parcel for you, 
containing the first No. of "The General 
Repository and Review/' For this you 
are indebted to Mr. B. I think a letter 
from him accompanied the Review, but 
am not sure, as I took, no memorandum 
of the contents of the parcel. A second 
number will shortly appear, which shall 
be forwarded by the earliest opportunity. 
I believe I mentioned in my last the name 
of the Editor, Mr. Norton an excellent 
young man. Of his abilities you will be 
able to judge. I think the first article, 
and the Review of the Horsleian and 
Priestleian controversy display a sound- 
ness of judgment which at his age is rare. 
A number of young men who have taken 
their bachelor's degree now reside at 
Cambridge as theological students. Sev- 
eral of them are the sons of men of for- 
tune; some, as far as I can judge, of supe- 
rior talents; and all are pursuing their pro- 
fessional studies with a zeal which is well 
directed by the very worthy and learned 
Dr. Ware, professor of divinity, and Dr. 
Kirkland the president, and an honesty 
which is entirely unfettered and unbiassed 
by any system whatever. We have to 
contend here, as you in England, for the 
first principles of protestantism, but I see 
no reason to fear that the ensuing gener- 
ation will be destitute of able champions 
for the right of private judgment. 

"With regard to the progress of Unita- 
rianism, I have but little to say. Its ten- 
ets have spread very extensively in 
New England, but I believe there is only 
one Church professedly Unitarian. The 
Churches at Portland and Saco, of which 
you speak, hardly ever saw the light, and 
ex»t no longer. The Mr. Thatcher, who 
was formerly a Member of Congress, and 
the Judge T. whom Mr. Merrick men- 



tions, are the same. He is one of the 
.ludges of our Supreme Court, an excel- 
lent man and most zealous Unitarian, tic 
is now on the circuit in this town, and 
tells me he is obliged on Sunday to stay 
at home, or to hear a Calvinist Minister. 
He is no relation to our friend. 

"Most of our Boston Clergy and re 
spectable layman (of whom we have many 
enlightened theologians) are Unitarian. 
Nor do they think it at all necessary to 
conceal their sentiments upon these sub- 
jects, but express them without the least 
hesitation when they judge it proper. I 
may safely say, the general habit of think- 
ing and speaking upon this question in 
Boston, is Unitarian. At the same time 
the controversy is seldom or never intro- 
duced into the pulpit. I except the 
Chapel Chui»ch. If publications make 
their appearance attacking Unitarian sen- 
timents, they are commonly answered 
with spirit and ability; but the majoritv 
of those who are Unitarian are perhaps of 
these sentiments . without any distinct 
consciousness of being so. Like the first 
Christians, finding no sentiments but those 
in the N. T. and not accustomed to hear 
the language of the N. T. strained and 
warped by theological system-makers, 
they adopt naturally a just mode of think- 
ing. This state of things appears to ine 
so favorable to the dissemination of cor- 
rect sentiments, that I should perhaps re- 
gret a great degree of excitement in the 
public mind upon these subjects. The 
majority would eventually be against us. 
The ignorant, the violent, the ambitious" 
and the cunning, would carry the multi- 
tude with them in religion as they do in 
politics. One Dr. M. in a contest for 
spreading his own sentiments among the 
great body of the people, would at least, 
tor a time, beat ten Priestley s. Not to 
dwell upon the consideration, that Unita- 
rianism consists rather in not believing; 
and that it is more easy to gain proselytes 
to absurd opinions, than to make (hem 
zealous in rejusing to believe. With 
what arms, when the oj .-wohXci are the 
judges, can virtue and learning and honor 
contend with craft and cunning and equiv- 
ocation and fal«-jhood and intolerant zeai? 
Learning is worse than useless, virtue is 
often diffident of her own conclusions, 
and, at any rate, more anxious to render 
men good Christians, than to make them 
Christians of her own denomination; and 
that self-respect, which is the companion 
of virtue, disdains to meet the low enn 
ning of her adversaries, or to flatter the 
low prejudices of her judges. I think 
then it must be assumed as an axiom ,tbat 
a persevering controversy upon this ques- 
tion, would render the multitude bigot c 
and persecuting Calvinists. Then come 



14 



Dr. Priestley's Letter. 



systems and catechisms in abundance. 
Every conceited deacon, every parishion- 
er who has, or thinks he has, a smatter- 
ing in theology, becomes the inquisitor of 
his pastor. In such circumstances learn- 
ing and good sense. have no chance. They 
cannot be heard. 

"The violent party here haYe chosen 
to meet their opponents upon very unfa- 
vorable ground. Instead of making it a 
cause of orthodoxy against heresy, they 
have very unwisely preferred to insist up- 
on a subscription to articles of faith. This 
lias given great offence to many who are 
disposed to be in favor of their creed, and 
thrown them into the opposite scale. Dr. 
Osgood is really orthodox in sentiment, 
but a noble and determined supporter of 
the right of private judgment, and on the 
best possible terms with our Boston 
friends. This is also the case with the 
venerable Dr. Lathrop of West-Spring- 
field, Mr. Palmer's friend, and many 
others. In short we are now contending 
for the liberty of being Protestants. If 
we can persuade the people (and we stand 
upon advantageous ground) that we have 
the right to think upon religious subjects 
as our consciences and the Scriptures di- 
rect, things will go on well. Learning, 
good sense, and virtue, will then produce 
their natural efffCts, and just modes of 
thinking upon subjects of this nature, as 
upon all others, will necessarily prevail. 

"Will you, my dear Sir, excuse unin- 
tentional prolixity? I do not know that 
you will approve my sentiments, nor am 
I very confident of their justness; but I 
have seen the contest between truth and 
falsehood, before the multitude; between 
every thing which is respectable and eve- 
ry thing wliich is detestable, so unequal in 
politics, that I dread the event in matters 
of religion. Still I would be no advocate 
for timidity, much less for any thing like 
equivocation, or evasion; and it must be 
confessed that prudence often degenerates 
into these vices. 1 am, dear Sir, with the 
greatest esteem, yours affectionately, 
W. Wells, Jur. pp. 43 — 46. 

Such is the testimony in the 
case under consideration; and 
we presume that no man, in his 
senses, will hesitate for a mo- 
ment to give implicit credit to 
such witnesses. We shall feel 
ourselves warranted hereafter, 
to speak of the fact as certain, 
that Unitavianism is the predom- 
inant religion among the minis- 
itrs and churches of Uoston. 



In the District of Maine, Mr. 
Belsham states, from his corres- 
pondent Dr. Freeman, that high 
hopes were entertained of the 
spread of Unitarian principles. 
Churches were established in 
Portland by the labors of the 
Rev. Mr. Oxnard, and in Saco 
by the zeal of Mr. (now judge) 
Thatcher. These hopes, how- 
ever, were premature, as it 
appears by the letter of Mr. 
Wells. 

New York and Philadelphia 
were also conr-idered by Dr. 
Priestley, when he first came to 
this country, as affording great 
promises of an abundant harvest. 
Thus he writes to Mr. Lindsey. 

"JVevtf York, June 15, 1794. 
<With respect to myselt the differ- 
ence is great indeed. In England I was 
an object of the greatest aversion to 
every person connected with govern- 
ment; whereas here they are those who 
show me the most respect. With you 
the Episcopal Church is above every 
thing. In this city it makes a decent fig- 
ure, but the Presbyterians are much 
above them, and the Governor (Clinton,) 
who is particularly attentive to me, goes 
to the meeting-house. 

"But the preachers, though all civil to 
me, look upon me with dread, and none 
of them has asked me to preach in their 
pulpits. This however does them no good. 
Several persons express a wish to hear 
me, and are ashamed of the illiberality of 
the preachers, and some are avowed Uni- 
tarians, so that I am fully persuaded an 
Unitarian minister, of prudence and good, 
sense, might do very weH here. If I were 
here a Sunday or two more I would make 
a beginning, and I intend to return for 
this purpose. The greatest difficulty arises 
from the indifference of liberal-minded 
men as to religion in general; they are so 
much occupied with commerce and poli- 
tics. One man of proper spirit would be 
sufficient to establish a solid Unitarian in- 
terest; and I am persuaded it will soon be 
done. As I am much attended to, and 
my writings, which are in a manner un- 
known here, begin to be inquired after, 1 
will get my small pamphlets immediately 
printed here; and wherever 1 can get an 
invitation to preach I will go. With this 
view I shall carefully avoid all the party 
politics of the country, and hare no other 



Cases of Mr.' Abbot and Mr. Sherman. 15 



object besides religion and philosophy. 
Philadelphia will be a more favorable sit- 
uation than this, and there I shall make a 
beginning. It will be better, however, to 
wait a little time, and not show much zeal 
at the first; and as my coming here is 
much talked of, I shall reprint my Fast 
and Fareweu Sermons. — — « 

"I have written to Mr. Belsham, whom 
I hope, some time or other, to draw 
hither. He will tell you my scheme. But 
as I am soon going to Philadelphia, I shall 
soon know more on the subject. 

"I was never more mortified than I 
now am at not having with me any of my 
small tracts in defence of the divine unity, 
as my being here leads many persons to 
wish to read what I have written on the 
subject. — I shall reprint them, and I flat- 
ter myself they will produce a considera- 
ble effect. Indeed my earning hither 
promises to be of mueli more service to 
our cause than I had imagined. But time 
is necessary, and I am apt to be too pre- 
cipitate. I want your cool judgment. You 
waited patiently a long time in London; 
but what an abundant harvest have you 
had there. J. Piu:esti,ey." pp. 47, 48-. 

How well these ardent expec- 
tations were fulfilled Mr. Bel- 
sham informs us, 

"Dr. Priestley's personal ministry in 
the United "States was attended with very, 
little apparent success. In Northumber- 
land, where he resided, he collected but 
lew proselytes; and in Philadelphia, where 
the chapel in which he preached was at 
first crowded v :t; the principal characters 
in the United States, he was afterwards 
for some reason or other almost deserted. 
Yet here his labors we>e not wholly inef- 
fectual. .Since Dr. Priestley's decease a 
small, but highly respectable congrega- 
tion, has been formed, in which, till a 
regular minister can be procured, a few 
of the most intelligent and best informed 
members conduct" the service by turns; 
and the society, upon the whoie, is in- 
areasing, though some, who once professed 
zeal ia the cause, have turned their backs 
upon it. The Unitarians, in Philadelphia 
are now erecting a chapel for religious wor- 
ship, to which many of different persuasions 
have contributed liberaliy." pp. 23, 24, 

In Connecticut, that land of 
steady habits, Unitarianism has 
had poor success. Two minis- 
ters, the Rev. J. Sherman, and 
the Rev. A. Abbot, who endeav- 



ored to make disciples there to 
the sect in question, were both 
obliged to separate from their 
charges. Mr. Belsham h3S in- 
troduced a long account of the 
persecution, (as he is pleased to 
consider it) of these two "worthy 
confessors.*' We shall not enter 
upon the examination of these 
cases at present. We refer our 
readers for the examination of 
Mr. A.'s case to the Panoplist 
for August, 1812, p. U8, where 
they will fiud an ample review of 
it. Mr. Sherman's case is quite 
as unfortunate for Mr. B.'s cause- 
Mr. S. was dismissed, not by a 
Consociation, or an ex-fmrte 
council; but by a Mutual Coun- 
cil; by men whom he himself 
considered as favoring his cause. 
On some of the reflections which 
Mr. B. makes, with regard to 
his dismission, we shall have 
occasion again to touch. We 
shall dismiss the case at present* 
with advising Mr. B , before he 
bestows the honors of martyr- 
dom again, to wait until the 
martyr has had time to evince 
the stability of his profession. 

Of Mr. S. we are altogether 
disposed to speak with tender- 
ness. We have always greatly 
lamented his fall. He was an 
amiable man, and possessed re- 
spectable talents. But .we be- 
lieve that Unitarians themselves 
are not much gratified with his 
present standing. 

Nothing but the merest spirit 
of party could ever have laid 
hold of the cases of Mr. Abbot 
and Mr. Sherman, as subjects 
of complaint, Nothing but a 
partial, colored, mangled state- 
ment of their cases, could be of 
any avail to the Unitarian cause 
After all the means, which arc 
before the public, of becomim:; 



16 



Ordinations at Boston, 



acquainted with the merits of 
these cases, we think it to b,e 
unnecessary to dwell any longer 
upon the subject. 

Mr. Belsham informs us, that 
a Unitarian congregation has 
been formed at Oidcnbarneveld, 
:n the State of New York. Mr. 
Sherman was their first minis- 
ter. He was, however, dismiss- 
ed before long; and the congre- 
gation was fast dwindling av ay, 
when Mr. Belsham's book was 
written. 

Mr. B. wrote too early to 
communicate some other curi- 
ous information, on the subject 
of Unitarianism in the western 
part of the State of New York. 
We will supply the defect. 
Within two years, two Unitarian 
ministers, unable to procure or- 
dination from the clergy in that 
vicinity, have been ordained by 
some of the ministers of Boston, 
and others in its vicinity, over 
Oldenbarneveld, and Canandai- 
gna. 

One of these ordinations took 
place lateJy in Boston; the other 
•a year or two since in the neigh- 
borhood. This is rather a new 
practice in our country; but it 
has some recommendations. It 
saves much expense and time. 
A few years since, it was cus- 
tomary for Unitarian candidates, 
who were desirous of obtaining 
a settlement without exposing 
themselves to the scrutiny of or- 
thodox clergymen, to send from 
distant places to Boston and the 
vicinity for an ordaining coun- 
cil. All this was attended wilh 
trouble, and was, besides, calcu- 
lated to excite inquiry and dis- 
trust. But now, if a Unitarian 
candidate wishes to be ordained, 
whether he thinks it proper to 
avow his seniments or not, he 



can take a journey to Boston* 
where an ordaining council can 
be found without the least incon- 
venience. If some members of 
the congregation, not under- 
standing the reason of so novel a 
proceeding, should require an 
explanation, it will be easy to 
say, that there is no place in the 
world, where so venerable, and 
wise, and learned, and liberal a 
council can be formed as in Bos- 
ton. Our readers may be sur- 
prised at the measure here de- 
scribed: but we have long since 
ceased to be surprised at any 
measure, which could propagate 
the principles in question. 

We must now come to a sub- 
ject on which we should not 
touch without mature considera- 
tion. We mean the propaga- 
tion of Unitarianism in Harvard 
College. We are fully sensible 
of the delicacy of the subject. 
That this noble institution has 
laid fast hold of the affections of 
the community, is a subject of 
congratulation rather than of 
wonder. It has been, in litany 
points of view, the pride ami 
glory of our western world. Its 
excellent founders and subse- 
quent benefactors have endow- 
ed it in a manner unparalleled 
in this country; and it has been 
the nursery of a long and illus- 
trious train of religious, civil, 
and literary characters, whose 
names will not be forgotten r 
while the history of the United 
States shall continue to attract 
the notice of mankind. Its lit- 
erary character we are far from 
wishing to disparage, or under- 
value. Its instructors are a 
highly respectable body of men- 
Among them are. some, as we 
would hope and believe, who 
prefer the fuith of our fathers W 



Unitarianism in Harvard College. 



17 



the new philosophy of the day. 
Whatever we may think of the 
religious opinions of others, we 
are not in the slightest degree 
tempted to detract from any just 
estimation, in which they ought 
to be held, as men of talents and 
literature. If talents are per- 
verted, or erudition misapplied, 
in the zealous propagation of 
the new philosophical religion, 
we must of course lament such 
a state of things; but this will 
neither warrant nor prompt us 
to treat the persons concerned 
with disrespect. 

We are aware of the artifice, 
which has been resorted to by 
some distinguished names, to 
save this Seminary from animad- 
version* The moment we be- 
gin to express our fears res- 
pecting the tendency of its ad- 
ministration, they vociferate, 
"Why then you are enemies to 
learning! You want to pull down 
the college; to check the spirit 
of improvement and inquiry; 
and to bring us back to the dark 
ages?" This will do very well 
as a hasty appeal to the vulgar; 
but if it be intended as a speci- 
men of the new philosophical 
reasoning, it is, we should sup- 
pose, not quite so happy as could 
be wished by its authors. 

What! Are we enemies to 
learning, because we are con- 
vinced that learning misap- 
plied and perverted may do great 
harm to the community? And 
because we are earnestly desi- 
rous, that this noble Institution, 
sacredly consecrated "to Christ 
and the Chu/ch," should regard 
its original destination, and not 
teach men to deny the Lord of 
glory, instead of worshipping 
him? Are we enemies to Har- 
vard University, because we ar- 
3 



dently wish that the majority of 
its instructors had such views of 
Christianity as appear to ug 
evangelical, instead of other 
views, which they now entertain 
and inculcate? The allegation is 
as contemptible as it is errone- 
ous, and can never weigh a 
feather, but with persons, who 
are guided neither by reason- 
ing nor by principle. 

But may we not be mistaken, 
in our apprehensions respecting 
the administration of Cambridge 
College? Would to God we 
might be convinced of this; but 
the proof, from the . pamphlet 
before us, is too plain to admit 
of doubt. 

Mr. Belsham has told us what 
was done at Cambridge, more 
than 2,0 years ago, to introduce 
Unitarianism there. 

"As a further means of diffusing the 
important doctrines of the proper Unity 
of God, and the simple humanity of Je- 
sus Christ, Mr. Lindsey made a present 
of his own and of Dr. Priestley's Theolog- 
ical Works to the Libraiy of Harvard 
College, in the University of Cambridge 
in New England; for which, "as a very 
valuable and acceptable present," he re- 
ceived the thanks of the President and 
Fellows. These books were read -with 
great avidity by the students. But 
though there is reason to believe that the 
seed thus sown took deep root, and that 
in many instances it produced an abun- 
dant harvest; and though many persons 
eminent for rank and talent in the New 
England States openly avowed the Unita- 
rian creed, it does not appear that any 
numerous societies of Christians have 
hitherto followed the example of the 
congregation at the King's Chapel, in 
making a public profession of the Unitari- 
an doctrine." pp. 15, 16, 

Again; 

"In the state of Massachusetts, and 
particularly in the environs of Boston, 
the great cause of Christian truth," (i. e. of 
Unitarianism,) "is making a silent but rap- 
id and irresistible progress. From th* 
inquisitive and liberal spirit which pre- 



18 



Unitarianism in Harvard College. 



vails in the University of Cambridge, 
which has never been checked at any 
time, but which there is reason to expect 
will receive every requisite aid and en- 
couragement from the present learned 
and accomplished Principal, Dr. Kirk- 
land, the happiest consequences may be 
«xpected to ensue." p. 37. 

We refer also to the first par- 
agraph of the letters of Mr. 
Wells, a distinguished and fa- 
vorite alumnus of that college. 
If further evidence were want- 
ing, we might find it, in the 
class of books recommended by 
the Professor of Divinity in that 
Seminary, as the be.st books in 
Theology; in the manner in 
which his Theological Lectures 
are managed, and in which the 
exercises of the Sabbath are con- 
ducted; especially, in the Gen- 
eral Repository, a work, which 
declares the doctrine of the 
Trinity to be the grossest cor- 
ruption of modern times; and in 
a letter of consolation and en- 
couragement written by Dr. 
Kirkland to the New Unitarian 
Church in Philadelphia; which 
they, like their Apostle Bel- 
sham, have been complaisant 
enough to publish, by shewing it 
to several of their orthodox 
friends. But it is unnecessary 
to proceed in this detail, which 
might be enlarged to thousands 
of particulars. The gentlemen 
themselves, since Mr. Belsham 
has so unexpectedly and impru- 
dently betrayed the matter, will 
not, we presume, for a moment 
hesitate to avow the princples 
which they hold. 
There is one topic of proof, how- 
ever, which is of a very solemn 
nature, and which deserves a 
separate notice. We refer to 
the prayers, offered by the Pres- 
ident, at the public commence- 
ment. It will not be contended, 



that these prayers, as they have 
been offered for four years in 
succession, afford an unfavorable 
specimen of the kind of religion, 
which is taught in the college. 
Indeed, the prayers of professed 
Christians, generally, are much 
less apt to be erroneous, than 
their direct, formal, instructions. 
At one commencement, that of 
1813, the prayers were particu- 
larly observeed, and their defi- 
ciences noticed, even by chil- 
dren who had been accustomed 
to far other devotional exercises. 
At the close of the day, several 
gentlemen of education and res- 
pectability, from different parts 
of the American union, came to 
the unanimous conclusion, that 
the following negatives could be 
truly asserted concerning both 
the prayers: viz. That there wa3 
no mention of sin; of course no 
petition for forgiveness; no ad- 
mission or implication that man- 
kind are in a ruined state; no 
acknowledgment of exposedness 
to sin. There was no mention 
of salvation; nor the slightest 
allusion to any church as existing 
upon earth; nor to the holiness 
and happiness of heaven. There 
was no mention of a radical dis- 
tinction among men; no admis- 
sion of regeneration; no suppli- 
cation for spiritual aid. There 
was no looking forward to a 
more blissful period of the 
world, when the truth shall be 
universally prevalent. In one 
of the prayers, there was no 
mention of Christ, nor the most 
distant allusion to Him; in the 
other, the only mention or allu- 
sion was in the three closing 
words, "through our Redeem- 
er." 

We should not have mention- 
ed this subject, if it seemed pos- 



Manner of propagating Unitarianism. 



19 



sible that such prayers could 
have originated from mere for- 
getfulness, or accident. Were 
we asked fpr a positive descrip- 
tion of them, we should say, that 
they were such as a candid and 
intelligent man would suppose 
Mr. Belsham to make, in perfect 
consistency with his creed. 

It is to be remembered, that 
the departure of a class from the 
college, where they have been 
educated, is to them a solemn 
occasion; and that they need, 
whatever their instructors may 
think on the subject, to be earn- 
estly and affectionately com- 
mended to the grace of God- 
They need the prayers of all, 
who have an interest at the 
throne of grace, that as they go 
forth into the world, and become 
more exposed to its manifold 
temptations, they may be pre- 
served from sin, and sanctified 
by the Word and Spirit of God, 
made blessings to the church 
and the world, and prepared for 
endless happiness and glory. 

Such, then, is the melancholy 
•yiew of this important Seminary; 
which contains hundreds of 
promising youths, who are here- 
after to act a conspicuous part 
in the important business of life. 
The most superficial observer 
must see, that such a seminary 
is the very heart of the common- 
wealth; every pulse it beats, if it 
be diseased, will send poisonous 
blood to the very extremities of 
the body politic. Let Christian 
parents look well to this. The 
men that raised up the College, 
i»nd made it the glory of our 
western world, were men who 
consecrated it "to Christ and the 
church.** To them belongs the 
praise of making it what it has 
been. But it is no longer what 



it once was. The lustre of sci- 
ence still shines, but the Sun of 
Christianity is eclipsed. Young 
men leave the place now, not 
with hosannas in their mouths 
to the Son of David; but with 
burning zeal to propagate the 
new philosophy.^ Does the par- 
ent, who bows the knee to Jesus, 
wish to have his son deny the 
Lord that bought him? If not, 
let him well reflect what desti- 
nation he gives him, to be taught 
the principles of religion as well 
as science. 

If the advocates for the present 
administration of the College are 
displeased with these remarks, 
they must thank Mr. Belsham 
for having elicited them. We 
never took our pen with greater 
caution, nor with a more imperi- 
ous sense of duty. 

We have done with the His- 
tory of the progress of Unitari- 
anism; but there are some inci- 
dental points in the pamphlet 
before us, which it will be prop- 
er to notice. 

The manner, in which Unita- 
rianism is propagated, deserves 
a few moments attention. Dr. 
Freeman, as has been seen al- 
ready, describes certain cau- 
tious characters, "who content 
themselves with leading their 
hearers, by a course of rational 
but prudent sermons, gradually 
and insensibly to embrace" Uni- 
tarianism. Though Dr. F. does 
not entirely approve this mode; 
"yet," says he, "it produces good 
effects.** 

Mr. Belsham has inserted in 
his work, (pp. 38 — 41 of the 
pamphlet,) a very "curious" let- 
ter, to use his own epithet; but 
has not told us who was the 
writer of it. We recommend 
this letter to our readers, as one 



20 Manner of propagating Unitarianism. 



of the most admirable specimens 
of anility, which they will any 
where find. It contains a great 
deal of small talk, concerning 
the Boston Clergy and other 
things. The object of Mr. BeJ- 
sham in publishing it, was, 
doubtless, to chastise the Boston 
clergy for their cowardice in 
concealing their religious opin- 
ions. Hear him commenting on 
this letter: 

"Can it upon the common principles of 
human nature be reasonably expected of 
a body of clergy, nursed in the lap of ease 
and affluence, and placed in a station of 
such high secular consideration and com- 
fort as that of the ministers of Boston, 
that they should come forward and by an 
Open profession of unpopular truth volun- 
tarily risk the loss of all their temporal 
dignity and comfort, and incur the con- 
tempt and enmity of many who are now 
their warmest admirers and friends? I say 
not this by way of disparagement to the 
present body of ministers in Boston and 
its neighborhood. Some of these I have 
the pleasure to call my friends, and know 
them to be possessed of talents the most 
distinguished, of piety the most fervent, 
and of benevolence and zeal the most ar- 
dent, active and laudable; and of the rest 
I have heard a most favorable character. 
It is the situation, not the men, which ex- 
cites my apprehensions. And who will 
venture to say of himself, that his virtue 
would be equal to the trial. Yet still it 
cannot reasonably be hoped that truth 
will make any visible and rapid progress, 
till her advocates rise above the fear of 
man, and the love of ease, and are willing 
with the apostles of Christ and the re- 
formers of every age, to forsake all and to 
sacrifice their dearest interests in her glo- 
rious cause. The encouragement and 
success which such faithful confessors 
would meet with in that populous and op- 
ulent city, would, I doubt not, be very 
great." p. 41. 

"Faithful confessors!" What 
distinguished self-denial, sim- 
plicity, and godly sincerity! The 
crown of martyrdom surely 
awaits you. Are you not impa- 
tient to be gone, and grasp the 
immortal prize? 

Mr. Belsham takes the liberty 
to differ very much from his 



Boston brethren, on the subject 
of concealing their sentiments 
in this manner. Mr. Wells has 
undertaken to become their ad- 
vocate. His plea in their behalf 
has been already seen in the third 
paragraph of his letter. 

We pass over, for the present, 
the very decorous appellations, 
liberally bestowed by Mr. Wells 
upon the orthodox; and remark 
merely, that the apology for his 
cautious brethren sufficiently in- 
dicates his views of their con- 
duct in regard to their public 
teaching. 

Thus it is, and thus it has been 
for years. Knowing that the 
cold skepticism of Socinianism 
cannot satisfy the wants nor alle- 
viate the woes of plain common 
sense people, its advocates in 
general have not dared to be 
open. They have clandestinely 
crept into orthodox churches, 
by forbearing to contradict their 
faith, and then have gradually 
moulded them by their negative 
preaching, to the shape which 
they would wish. The people, 
after a while, never hearing of 
the atonement, nor of special 
grace, or any of the kindred doc- 
trines, forget that they belong to 
theChristian system; and, by and 
by, regard a man as a kind of 
enthusiast, or monster, who 
preaches such doctrines. Who 
does not see, that there is great 
cunning, and that there is great 
policy in all this? But then— the 
honesty! That is another matter. 
Did the holy apostles act in this 
manner when they preached to 
Jews or heathens? Did they 
teach by negatives? Let those 
blush, who profess to follow the 
apostles, and yet behave in this 
base, hypocritical manner! Com- 
mon honesty revolts at it. The 
idea that a minister believes 



Manner of Propagating Unitarianism. 21 



the truths of the Gospel to be of 
infinite importance, and still 
conceals them, is incompatible 
either with fidelity or integrity. 

We appeal to the community 
at large, whether it is not a noto- 
rious fact, that candidates for the 
ministry, of the liberal party, 
generally conceal their religious 
opinions; and that they do this 
with particular care, when there 
is a prospect, or a hope, of their 
being settled over orthodox 
churches? We ask, also, wheth- 
er it is not a notorious fact, that 
candidates of the orthodox school 
generally avow their religious 
opinions with the utmost frank- 
ness, and that they take particu- 
lar care to do so, when there is a 
prospect of their being settled 
over churches and congrega- 
tions, which are supposed to 
have a leaning towards modern 
liberality? A child can draw the 
inference; especially when in- 
formed, that inducements of a 
worldly nature would often be 
quite as great in the latter class 
of cases as in the former. 

We know indeed, that modesty 
is the plea of these negative 
preachers! They do not wish to 
be over-confident! But let us see 
them undisguised; look at them 
in Mr. Belsham's pamphlet; and 
judge of this modesty and want 
of confidence in their own opin- 
ions. 

"Unitarianism," says Mr. 
Wells, "consists rather in not 
believing." Yes, in not believing 
the doctrines of the Gospel; but 
not in having no creed. Some 
Unitarians are, indeed of this 
sort. They are universal skep- 
tics, respecting every proposi- 
tion that relates to Christianity. 
But most have a creed. What 
that is, we have seen from the 



hand of the ingenuous Mr. Bel- 
sham; who, whatever other faults 
he has, is certainly not often 
chargeable with the faults of 
tergiversation and duplicity. 

Of the manner in which Uni- 
tarianism is taught in Harvard 
College, Mr. Wells has given 
us a description in the first para- 
graph of his letter, to which the 
reader will please to refer. This 
accords, to be sure, very well 
with the accounts which we have 
often received, of the manner of 
instruction in divinity, at present, 
in that University. System in 
instruction, as a positive entity, 
is indeed sufficiently remote 
from the "direction" of the In- 
structors; but that religion, 
"which consists in not believ- 
ing," is taught by a well concerts 
ed and uniformly executed plan 
of negatives. All systems but 
Unitarianism are openly, or se- 
cretly, impugned or ridiculed, 
while the "no* believing" reli- 
gion is dexterously substituted 
in their place. 

We unite most heartily with 
Mr. Belsham, on the subject of 
propagating Unitarianism, in the 
'wish to see all who are truly 
Unitarians openly such,' and that 
they would teach the doctrines 
of their creed, "as well as prac- 
tise the rites of Unitarian wor- 
ship." p. 41. 

Let every honest man look at 
the above picture of Unitarian- 
ism, drawn by the leaders them- 
selves. Hear Mr. Wells once 
more, on the spread of these 
principles. "Its tenets," (those 
of Unitarianism,) "have spread 
very extensively in New Eng- 
land, but I believe there is only 
one church professedly Unita- 
rian." p. 44. Indeed! And are 
these the true representatives 



22 



How Unitarians praise each other. 



of the Apostles and martyrs, 
glorifying God by an often pro- 
fession of his Gospel, and not 
ashamed to own their Lord be- 
fore men? Is this the simplicity 
and godly sincerity of the Gos- 
pel? And these the men, who 
claim all the reason, all the learn- 
ing, all the charity, all the integ- 
rity of the community? Are these 
the men, who, according to the 
insinuation of Mr. Wells, are 
"every thing that is respectable," 
while their opponents are "every 
thing that is detestable?" The 
conduct of Mr. Belsham, rotten 
as he is, in point of doctrine, to 
the very core, is purity itself 
compared with the conduct of 
these. 

There is another striking 
characteristic in the progress of 
Unitarianism in this country. 
We have, in various places, the 
history of the manner in which 
converts are made to this reli- 
gion. The Boston clergy are 
represented by Dr. Freeman, as 
first converted by the labors of 
Mr. Hazlitt. The Rev. Mr. Ox- 
nard, the father of the Unitarians 
at Portland, was "convinced by 
the works of Dr. Priestley and 
Mr. Lindsey." p. .6. "The pub- 
lications of these men," says Dr. 
F. "have had, and probably will 
have, great effects." p. 17. By 
the same publications, was the 
Rev. J. Sherman convinced, p. 
24. The works of other Unita- 
rians make converts also at Old- 
enbarneveld, and other places. 
Dr. Priestley, in his letter al- 
ready extracted, seems to con- 
sider his Tracts as necessary to 
his success. 

All this, to be sure, is just 
what the orthodox have long 
affirmed; Unitarianism is not 
spread by the Bible. Bat then, 



that the sect, which has such a 
loathing for all systems, and all 
human creeds, and composi- 
tions, should depend, and ac- 
knowledge its dependence, for 
all its success, on the works of 
Priestley, Lindsey, and a few 
others, is not quite so consistent 
as one might expect. Yes, the 
Bible, and the Holy Spirit of 
God, are not once named in the 
whole pamphlet, as the causes 
of conversion to Unitarianism; 
or as even co-ad jutors in this 
work. The truth frequently 
owes its disclosure to accident. 
Mr. Belsham and his correspon- 
dents, did not mean to portray 
Unitarianism thus. But where 
there was no disguise; in the 
free expression of their hearts, 
they told the honest truth. To 
Priestley, and Lindsey, and their 
co-adjutors be all the glory of 
the spread of this sect! The Bi- 
ble will, we apprehend, be the 
last to claim it. 

There is another characteristic 
of Unitarians, displayed in this 
pamphlet, which is not new to 
us, but with which we have for 
many years been nauseated. It 
is the practice of universally be- 
daubing each other, with all the 
fulsome adulation which they can 
collect and invent. Let us see 
how this matter is managed by 
Mr. Belsham and his corres- 
pondents. We begin with the 
commencement of the book, and 
go on in course. The Rev. J, 
Smith is simply "respectable." 
Dr. Freeman has "a great deal 
of knowledge, good sense, and 
an excellent disposition." Mr, 
Hazlitt is "pious, zealous, and 
intelligent,— «an honest man — and 
an honest good man;" all in 
twelve lines. Dr. Provost, who 
is represented as favoring Dr. F. 



How Unitarians praise each other. 



23 



is a "man of great learning, lib- 
eral sentiments, and deep piety," 
as well as a "worthy prelate." 
Governor Bowdoin, who is also 
represented as favoring Dr. F. 
has "learning, good sense and 
merit." Mr. Carey is "worthy 
of the honorable situation which 
he occupies, and is well qualified 
to carry on the cause in which 
his excellent colleague is en- 
gaged." Mr. Oxnard is a "man 
of good talents, sincere piety, 
and of ardent zeal," a "worthy 
founder," and a "worthy man;" 
all in twelve lines. Gen. Lin- 
coln is our "worthy Lieutenant 
Governor." Mr. Thatcher js a 
"gentleman of large property, 
and of excellent character; of 
active zeal, of high character, 
approved patriotism and distin- 
guished talents." Mr. Bentley, 
(the Rjv. Mr. Bentley of Salem) 
is a "man of a bold, independent 
mind, of strong natural powers, 
and of more skill in the learned 
languages than any person of his 
years in the state." Col- Mappa 
is a "gentleman of truly respect- 
able character, and of considera- 
ble property." Mr. Vanderkemp 
is "learned and pious — and ex- 
cellent and worthy." Mr. Sher- 
man is a "worthy confessor,— a 
Christian confessor;" possesses 
"fortitude and zeal," with a 
"high elevation of character." 
Mr. Abbot is the "faithful cham- 
pion of truth, the amiable, use- 
ful, and beloved pastor; the vir- 
tuous sufferer; an able, honest, 
and pious sufTerer;" all within 
half a page. Mr. Wells is "in- 
telligent, learned, and valuable," 
and has a "zeal for »,he trmh 
which is beyond all praise." Mr. 
Norton is an "excellent young 
man." Dr. Ware is "worthy 
and learned;" and Mr. Buck- 



minster is "reverend, and learn- 
ed, and eloquent." 

All this, and much more of the 
same kind, in about 30 pages. 
Truly praise must be plenty 
enough, when it rains down thus 
in showers. We wonder what 
new Lexicon of epithets Mr. 
Belsham and his correspondents 
have been studying. It must 
surely be a worthy book, by a 
worthy author, printed by a wor- 
thy printer, at a worthy press; 
besides being bound in a worthy 
manner by a worthy binder, and 
sold by a worthy bookseller, at a 
worthy price, to a worthy man, 
who has made a wo/thy use of it, 
in the composition of this worthy 
history. 

But to be serious; it is nause- 
ating, it is intolerable, to find 
such daubing on every page. 
Let a man only turn Unitarian, 
and he becomes at once a man of 
talents,, and consideration. The 
newspap'ers puff his performan- 
ces. He is flattered while he 
lives; and canonized when he is 
dead. Boston is, we believe, the 
only place in this country, where 
the manner in which duties ar e 
discharged in the pulpit, are 
made the perpetual subject of 
newspaper eulogy. The Editors 
of papers are not at the bottom 
of this. It lies in the taste of 
the Unitarian public. Cambridge 
is the only University which 
praises herself, and assumes a 
place above all her sister col- 
leges. We are satisfied that 
Unitarianism has done this. It 
is one of the arts of proselyting. 
Mr. Belsham has shewn us how 
he can play off his actors in the 
drama. The disciples follow the 
example of their master. But 
it is high time to have done 
praising themselves; or at lcujrt 



24 



How Unitarians praise each other. 



to be sensible of the awkward, 
disgusting manner, in which 
they discharge this essential part 
of their vocation. 

All this, however, we may be 
told, proceeds from breasts over- 
flowing with the milk of human 
kindness; from a fountain which 
sends forth ebullitions of univer- 
sal philanthropy. Indeed! Let 
us look a little farther before we 
draw this conclusion. How do 
these worthy, and fiious,and can- 
did, and liberal gentlemen treat 
their opponents? Take the fol- 
lowing specimens of liberality; 
and these too from leaders of 
the sect. 

Mr. Belsham calls the oppos- 
ers of Mr. Sherman, "ignorant 
and malignant persecutors, ,, p. 
26. Mr. Vanderkemp says, that 
Mr. Sherman has to struggle at 
Oldenbarneveld, "with furious 
bigotry and ignorant supersti- 
tion," p. 35. Mr. Wells, speak- 
ing of an open contest about So- 
cinian principles, indulges in 
the most violent invectives. Dr. 
Freeman tells Mr Lindsey, that 
he is frequently angry "with 
error and bigotry;" and congrat- 
ulates him, on his having "re- 
claimed many from the errors of 
idolatry and superstition." 

Such are the undisguised ex- 
pressions of these kind and lid' 
eral gentlemen toward the ortho- 
dox. All comment is superflu- 
ous. In pretence, all is polite- 
ness and liberality; in practice, 
we find a rancor bitter as death, 
and cruel as the grave. 

Dr. Freeman has indeed gone 
to the ne fuus of his sect. The 
orthodox are "idolaters" ! Divine 
Savior! What, then, are those 
ten thousand limes ten thousand, 
and thousands of thousands, 
around the throne of God, who 



say with a loud voice, Worthy is 
the Lamb that was slain, to re- 
ceive fiower, and riches, and wis- 
dom, and strength, and honor and 
glory and blessing, and who rest 
not day nor night from this em- 
ployment? 

It is more than three years, 
since we resolved to take up, as 
a distinct article, the systematic 
practice of praising each other, 
which has been adopted by the 
narrow circle of leading Unitari- 
ans in this country. This prac- 
tice we verily believe to have 
been carried to an extent abso- 
lutely unexampled. It has been 
so long continued, as to have be- 
come a proverb, and a by-word, 
in every part of the United 
States. Other pressing subjects 
have hitherto prevented us from 
accomplishing our intention. 
But from the complete success 
which attended a hasty glance at 
this subject, in a pamphlet on the 
controversy between Miss Ad- 
ams and Dr. Morse, we are sorry 
that it has not long ago been ex- 
amined and exposed. 

But it is time to bring our 
Review to a close. We will 
touch on one or two subjects 
more, and we shall have done 
for the present. 

We introduce the first sub» 
ject, by extracting from Mr. 
Belsham the following passage. 

"Notwithstanding however these strong 
facts, this noble profession, and this con- 
ciliatory spirit, the prudent Council pro. 
ceed, as a matter of expediency, to dis- 
miss Mr. Sherman from his connexion 
with the society: and whilcthey bear hon- 
orable testimony to his character and tal- 
ents, and "recommend him to the kind 
reception of those who may see fit to em- 
ploy him," they cautiously subjoin, that 
they " 'do not consider themselves as giv- 
ing their approbation of Mr. Sherman's 
peculiar phruse^logy or circumstantial 
difference of sentiment on the subject of 
the Trinity." And in their subsequent 



Necessity of a Separation, 



25 



advice to Mr. Sherman, they admonish 
him to guard against a bold spirit of spec. 
ulation ; and an inordinate love of novelty. 
"It is not a little curious to contrast 
those differences of opinion which this ven- 
erable Council coolly describes under the 
soft expressions of peculiar phraseology 
and a circumstantial difference of senti- 
ment. The man whom they gravely cau- 
tion against a bold spirit of speculation and 
inordinate love of novelty, asserts the doc- 
trine, that there is One God, the sole ob- 
ject of religious worship, and one Media- 
tor between God and man, the man Christ 
Jesus, who is the prophet and messenger 
of God. While his orthodox opponents, 
to accommodate whom the Council think 
it expedient to dismiss their exemplary 
pastor, maintain as a doctrine essential to 
salvation, and which they "can never 
give up but w ith the Bible which contains 
it," that "the man Jesus is truly and 
properly God." Is the venerable Coun- 
cil serious in stating differences so glaring 
and so substantial as these, as nothing 
more than a "peculiar phraseology" and a 
"circumstantial difference of sentiment"? 
No! No! Opinions such as these can no 
more harmonize with each other than 
light and darkness, than Christ and Belial, 
They who hold doctrines so diametrically 
opposite cannot be fellow worshippers lit 
the same temple. It was expedient th;it 
they should separate. So far the Council 
judged right." p. 30. 

With all our hearts we sub- 
scribe to this frank and ingenu- 
ous comment. It does konor to 
Mis Belsham. How different 
from the disguise of our Unita- 
rians, and their whining com- 
plaints about illiberaluy in the 
orthodox in refusing to exchange 
with them. We repeat with Mr. 
Belsham, "Those who hold doc- 
trines, so diametrically opposite, 
cannot be fellow-worshippers in 
the same temple." How can two 
walk together unless they are- 
agreed? We hope these re- 
murks of Mr. B. will stimulate his 
brethren here, to adopt his lan- 
guage on this subject; at least, 
to permit the orthodox to come 
out and be ttefiarate, without til- 
ling the churches and the news- 
papers with complaints of bigot- 
ry and uncharitablenes*. We 
4 



hope, too, that the orthodox will 
be stimulated to act more deci- 
sively on this subject, than they 
have done. It is the reproach 
and sin of Massachusetts, that 
while all the orthodox, from Con- 
necticut to Georgia, are unani- 
mous in withholding communion 
from Unitarians, she is lagging 
behind, and dallying with this 
awful and responsible subject. 
It is high time for decisive ac- 
tion on this point. We are aware 
who stand in the way. There are 
ministers, who make it their 
boast to shoot as near to ortho- 
doxy as they can? and not hit it; 
who are waiting to see which 
way the tide will finally turn; 
who will write one half of a ser- 
mon to please the orthodox, and 
the other half to satisfy Unitari- 
ans; who mean to be popular 
with both parties, let the cause 
of religion iare as it may. For 
such, it requires the full exer- 
cise of Christian meekness not 
to feel contempt. We do feel 
sincere commiseration. 

There are others, too, who are 
too modest and unassuming to 
preach or act decisively, because 
forsooth, they are not satisfied 
aboutcertain controverted points. 
Let such persons abandon the 
office of teaching, and return to 
their studies until they are satis- 
fied. What right have they to 
teach reiigion, when they them- 
selves are not satisfied about its 
fundamental principles? 

Both these parties are clogs to 
orthodoxy. Their help, is deadly 
to the cause. We want none to 
labor in the work, who are not 
satisfied that it is the cause of 
God, and prepared to act accord- 
ingly. 

Still) we would be the last to 
justify persecution, «r party 



26 



Necessity of a Separation. 



spirit. We abhor both. Let the 
orthodox come out and be sepa- 
ratees Mr. Belsham advises; but 
let them utter no reproaches; let 
them pass no hasty censures, no 
unchristian excommunications. 
Let them deal with their offend- 
ing brethren in a solemn, affec- 
tionate, tender manner. Their 
business is to labor for the salva- 
tion of souls, not to exalt a party. 
As to the utter incompatibility 
of Unitarianism with the faith of 
orthodox churches, we present 
our readers with the opinion of a 
very able man, and a distinguish- 
ed champion of the truth. 

"It is very obvious, that two systems, 
of which the sentiments on subjects such 
as these are in direct opposition, cannot, 
with any propriety, be confounded to- 
gether under one common name. That 
both should be Christianity, is impossible; 
else Christianity is a term which distin- 
guishes nothing. Viewing the matter ab- 
stractly, and without affirming, for the 
present, what is truth and what is error, 
this, I think, I may with confidence affirm, 
that to call schemes so opposite in all their 
great leading articles by a common appel- 
lation, is more absurd, than it would be to 
confound together those two irreconcila- 
ble theories in astronomy, of which the 
one places the Earth, and the other the 
Sun, in the centre of the Planetary Sys- 
tem. They are, in truth, essentially dif- 
ferent religions. For if opposite views as 
to the object of ivorghtp, the ground of 
hope for eternity, the rule vj faith and 
duty, and the principles end motives of 
true obedience; if these do not constitute 
different religions, we may, without much 
difficulty, discover some principles of union 
and identity, among all religions what- 
ever; we may realize the doctrine of 
Pope's universal prayer; and extend the 
right hand of fellowship to the worship- 
pers at the Mosque, and to the votaries of 
Brama." 

These sentences are taken 
from a work now in the press, 
and which will be presented to 
the public in a few days. It is a 
Series cf Discourses on the So- 
cinian Controversy, by the Rev. 
Ralph Wardlaw, of Glasgow? and 



has been received with very great 
favor in Great Britain. Mr- 
Wardlaw probably did not know, 
that Pope's Universal Prayer had 
been introduced with an altera- 
tion which did not affect the 
sense, into the public worship of 
an enlightened congregation, in 
the most enlightened place in 
the world. Yes, this prayer, 
which declares that the same God 
is worshipped by one, whom the 
New Testament describes as a 
saint or holy person, by a sage, 
who is laboring to emit the light 
of philosophy from the darkness 
of his own benighted mind, and 
by a savage, who is engaged in 
offering human sacrifices to his 
malignant deities; — this prayer 
is adopted by a Christian assem- 
bly to be used as a hymn of praise 
to the true God! 

To return to the subject, from 
which we digressed^ moment, 
let the orthodox separate in wor- 
ship and communion from Uni- 
tarians; but let them meekly give- 
a reason for their separation. To 
treat their opponents with asper- 
ity, with contempt, or reproach, 
is unworthy of them as Chris- 
tians, or as men. They must 
feel, that their opponents have 
souls to be saved or lost; souls 
as precious as their own. The 
great majority of those, whose 
influence goes to swell the im- 
portance of the liberal party, arc 
not involved in most of the cen- 
sures, which this review implies, 
or expresses. They, only, who 
are the principal actors in Mr 
Belsham's drama, have been thus 
unwittingly exposed by their 
heresiarch. Their conduct de- 
serves animadversion in many 
things, as it regards religion. In 
a civil and social respect, we are 
disposed to treat them with cour. 



Necessity of a Separation. 



27 



tesy. But we cannot, we ought 
:not to let this courtesy paralyze 
our hands and make us indiffer- 
ent, while the contest is pending, 
whether Christianity shall exist 
in any thing more than a name 
in our country, or be supplanted 
by the new philosophy. 

Let our readers say, after the 
above developement, whether 
the time is not come, in which 
we and they are to speak out, 
and to act with decision. If it is, 
then let them follow the exam- 
ple; and let the churches in this 
land, who yet reverence the reli- 
gion of the Bible, (which was 
the religion of our fathers,) and 
bow the knee to Jesus, purify 
themselves, wherever it is neces- 
sary from the reproach which 
row lies against some of them. 

Have you any doubts remain- 
ing on this subject after perus- 
ing the quotations contained in 
this Review? You have seen, 
Christians, in what .manner your 
Bible and your Savior are re- 
garded and treated. Ponder well 
on this. Shall your children be 
trained up in these principles? 
Remember that you are account- 
able to God for the manner in 
which you think and act on these 
subjects. 

We are aware, that it will be 
charged against us, that the ten- 
dency of the preceding remarks 
is to give an unfair representa- 
tion of the liberal party. It will 
be said, that the liberal party 
ought not to be condemned for 
the extravagant opinions of Mr. 
Belsham. It has been said, that 
Mr. Wells is an obscure man, 
and that his testimony does not 
amount to much. This is new 
to us. We had always supposed 
that Mr. Wells was far from be- 



ing an obscure man among the 
liberal party; and we still believe 
that he is one of the most intelli- 
gent, active, and prominent men 
in their ranks. That he has been 
among the planners and execu- 
tors of nearly all their literary 
publications will not be doubled. 
It is ,vith pleasure that we men- 
tion one proof of genuine liber- 
ality in Mr. Wells: we refer to 
his republication of the Chris- 
tian Observer. By presenting 
this work to the American pub- 
lic, he conferred a lasting benefit 
on this country; though, by do- 
ing it, he incurred the disappro- 
bation of some of his Unitarian 
brethren. We believe, however, 
that Mr. Wells is not at present 
concerned in that publication. 

But there is much evidence 
on this subject, besides the tes- 
timony of Mr. Wells and Dr, 
Freeman. We feel entirely war- 
ranted to say, that the predomi- 
nant religion of the liberal party 
is decidedly Unitarian, in Mr. 
Belsham's sense of the word. 
The Anthology, published by 
the most prominent clergymen 
and laymen of the liberal party, 
clearly favored the Unitarian 
school. The General Reposito- 
ry was still more open and un- 
disguised. Both these works 
had the patronage of those, who 
have the entire control of the 
College; the latter issuing from 
the walls of that seminary. The 
Improved Version of the New 
Testament was patronized and 
praised by the same men. Of 
this Version Mr. Belsham says, 
in his Calm Inquiry, p. 460, that 
'the notes were intended chiefly 
to exhibit tho most approved in- 
terpretations of the Unitarian 
expositors,' Of this avowedly 



28 



Necessity of a Separation. 



sectarian publication the Re- 
viewers in the General Reposi- 
tory speak thus, vol. iv, p. 207. 

"We honestly profess, and without fear 
of losing reputation with those, whose 
good opinion we are very solioitous to 
retain, that we think it a work highly re- 
spectable, and adapted to be very useful." 

Again the Reviewers say, that 
the editors of the improved Ver- 
sion 

"Have produced a version far more 
faithful, more correct, and more intelligi- 
ble, than that in common use; a version 
therefore to an intelligent English reader 
of very great value." 

In the Anthology for May, 
181 1, p. 336, is a review of the 
Memoirs of Dr. Wheelock. This 
review was written, as we have 
reason to believe, by the Presi- 
dent of Harvard College. If we 
have been misinformed, we will 
take the earliest opportunity of 
correcting the mistake. In the 
course of the article, there is 
much 6ly sarcasm in reference 
to the orthodox faith. The fol- 
lowing passage we quote as a 
specimen. 

"The «arly conversion of Mr. Whee- 
lock is by no means the general privilege 
of the disciples of his school, however ex- 
emplary and regular their lives. The 
change, which they deem saving, is most 
commonly, in the case of those intended 
for the ministry, delayed till near the time 
when they must begin or relinquish their 
chosen calling. At that period, they often 
find themselves pursued, as a "murderer 
by the avenger of blood to the very gates 
of the city of refuge" — and they must en- 
ter or perish. If their reason survives the 
dismay or despondence of the law-work, 
the dreadful spasm passes off; and the agi- 
tation subsides into a calm, which enables 
them first to hear the whispers of hope, 
and then proceed to the exultatiou of joy. 
pp. 337, 338. 

This passage is written in a 
style which exactly suits the 
views and feelings of the Unita- 



rian school. Could the founders, 
benefactors, and instructors of 
Harvard College, for nearly a 
century and three quarters, have 
foreseen the day, when the liter- 
ary publications, patronized by 
the governors and instructors of 
that institution, should ridisule 
the idea of conversion by the 
agency of the Holy Spirit of 
God, with what deep and poig- 
nant grief would their hearts 
have been effected! And how 
great would have been their as- 
tonishment, as well a* their grief, 
if informed, that the highest offi- 
cer, in that venerable seminary, 
would think it a proper employ- 
ment of his time to sit down 
coolly to the composition of a 
strain of sarcasm and raillery on 
such a subject: — and that, not for 
his own amusement only, but to 
be thrown into the world to fur- 
nish new jests for the profane, 
and increase the natural antipa- 
thy of men to religion! 

It appears, then, that the Col- 
lege, and nearly all the influence 
of the liberal party through the 
medium of the press, are in favor 
of Unitarianism. If individuals 
dislike Mr. Belsham as a leader; 
if they are not willing to be 
classed among his followers; let 
them declare their own opinions 
openly. But let them not yield 
all their countenance to Unitari- 
ans and yet complain if ranked 
in the same class, by those who 
have no means of learning their 
opinions except by their conduct. 

The pamphlet contains a curi- 
ous letter from Mr. Jefferson to 
Dr. Priestley, which we have not 
room to describe. Speaking of 
Mr. Jefferson, Dr. Priestley £ays: 
"He is generally considered as 
an unbeliever: if so, however, 

HE CANNOT BE FAR FROM US, 



Remarks on Mr. fVcllsls Letter. 



2<> 



and I hope in the way to be not 
only almost, but altogether what 
we are." This is what we have 
always thought, and frequently 
said. Unitarianism and Infidelity- 
are nearly related indeed. Mr. 
Weds, who is a hopeful pupil of 
the Priestleian school, says that 
they are identical. "Unitarianism," 
says he, "consists rather in not be- 
lieving," and he wishes to make 
men "zealous in refusing- to be- 
lieve." The words printed in Ital- 
ics were so printed by Mr. Bel- 
sham, and were probably under- 
scored by Mr. Wells. On reading 
this passage, we turned to the Im- 
proved Version, saying to ourselves, 
"Who knows but Mr. Wells may 
read Scripture thas: He that believ^ 
t'th not sfuill be saved." We find 
that this conjectural emendation is 
probably reserved for some impro- 
ved edition. Whether it is so re- 
served or not, it is quite as worthy 
of credit as several conjec'riral 
criticisms contained in that work. 

We shall close with a few brief 
observations on Mr. Wells's letter; 
a letter which contains, within a 
small compass, a faithful epitome 
of the most common cant of the lib- 
eral party, as it has appeared in 
their publications, for ten years past. 

It is curious to observe the truly 
meek and charitable manner, in 
which Mr. Wells arranges the par- 
ties to the Unitarian controversy. 
On his own side, are "honesty un- 
fettered and unbiassed," "correct 
sentiments," "virtue and learning 
and honor," "spirit and ability," 
"good sense," "self-respect, the 
companion of virtue," "truth," and, ' 
in short, "every thing which is res- 
pectable." Oii the side of the or- 
thodox, are "craft and cunning 
and equivocation and falsehood and 
intolerant zeal," "low cunning," 
"low prejudices," "and every thing 
which is detestable." So much for 
abstract qualities. When we come 
to persons, we find "Mr. Norton, an 
excellent young man," "the very 
worthy and learned Dr. Ware," 
"Dr. Kirkland the president," 
"most of the Boston clergy and res- 



pectable laymen, (many of whom 
are enlightened theologians,) who do 
not conceal their sentiments, but ex- 
press them, when th'-y judge it 
proper" and "Judge Thatcher, an 
excellent man and most zealous 
Unitarian:" these are drawn up in 
battle-array, in the liberal ranks. 
On the other side no names are 
mentioned except that of "Dr. M."* 
But we find that the orthodox con- 
sist of "theological system-makers;" 
of "the ignorant, the violent, the 
ambitious, and the cunning;" of 
"conceited deacons," and "bigoted, 
persecuting Calvinists." Kealiy! 
This is an arrangement which, in 
point of liberality, has seldom been 
surpassed. Mr. Wells ought to be 
appointed grand marshal of the 
Unitarian corps. 

Dr. Osgood and Dr. Lathrop are- 
suffered to stand apart. This favor 
seems to have been granted t. 
because, to use the words of Mr. 
Wells, "they are on the best possi- 
ble terms with our Boston friends." 
Mr. Weils decides without the 
least hesitation, that Unitarian sen- 
timents are the only sentiments to 
be found in the New Testament. It 
is not to our purpose to inquire, 
whence he d rived his authority to 
dogmatize in this flippant manner. 
He speak, however, of Drs. D&goed 
and Lathrop as "really orthodox, 1 ' 
and as "noble and determined sup- 
porters of the right of private judg- 
ment." Yet, if his decision is enti- 
tled to credit, these aged and "ven- 
erable" clergymen are the mere 
dupes of "theological system-mak- 
ers;" and have been employed all 
their lives in teaching doctrines, 
which have nothing to support them 
in the New Testament. 

Again; Mr. Wells speaks in the 
most confident manner as though all 
the learning in the world was enlist- 
ed on the Unitarian side, and had to 
contend with nothing but ignorance, 

♦The manner in which Dr. M. is men- 
tioned in this letter, and the influence 
which he is deemed to have, will account 
for no small part of the zeal, which some 
Unitarians have shewn to put him down. 
"Worthy" conduct in a "worthy" cau^e! 



30 



Remarks on Mr. Wells's Letter. 



prejudice and bigotry. Is it possible 
that Mr. Wells can believe, in ref- 
erence to this country, that all the 
learning is on his side, when nearly 
all the regular clergy, all the col- 
leges except one, and all the theo- 
logical institutions, are decidedly 
opposed to Unitarianism? and when 
he can number, as in favor of his 
scheme, only one college, and a few 
clergymen in Boston and the vicin- 
ity? Is it possible, that he can be- 
lieve the crude speculations of such 
a. man as Mr. Belsham to be evi- 
dences of great learning, while such 
men as Middleton, Magee, Buchan- 
an, Wardlaw, Chalmers, and the 
Editors of the Christian Observer, 
are poor, ignorant, deluded, bigoted 
creatures? 

Again; Mr, Wells says that "the 
violent party," (by which term he 
very meekly characterizes the 
friends of the religion of our fath- 
ers,) "have very unwisely preferred 
to insist upon a subscription to arti- 
cles of faith." The simple fact is, 
that the founders of the Theological 
Institution at Andover have very 
wisely insisted, that the professors 
supported by their funds should sub- 
scribe articles of faith. Yet a strang- 
er would suppose, from Mr. Wells's 
representation, that all our minis- 
ters and churches were required to 
subscribe to some authorized form- 
ulary of religious doctrines, on pen- 
alty of being excluded from the com- 
munion of the orthodox churches. 
We need not say, that such a rep- 
resentation is entirely unsupported 
by fact. 

It is indeed singular that men pro- 
fessing unbounded liberality, should 
raise and keep up a violent outcry, 
merely because a few charitable in- 
dividuals have endowed professor- 
ships 'with their own money, and 
have provided that the professors 
should believe certain doctrines, 
which, as the founders are fully 
persuaded, are taught in the Scrip- 
tures. 

Again; "We - have to contend 
here," says Mr. Wells, "for the 
first principles of Protestantism." 



"In short, we are now contendiag 
for the liberty of being Protestants. 
Were it not that similar assertions 
have been often made by many of 
the liberal party, we should not no- 
tice this subject. We must intreat 
Mr. Wells, and his brethren, to state 
precisely what those principles of 
Protestantism are, which are con- 
tended for by him and his friends, 
and denied by the orthodox. Till 
this is done, we shall take the liber- 
ty of asserting, and we do it without 
the least fear of contradiction or ex- 
posure, that no one fundamental 
principle of Protestantism is thus 
contended for and thus denied. Let 
us look a moment at a subject, 
which has given rise to so much, 
groundless clamor. What are the 
hrst principles of Protestantism? 
We have always supposed, that 
justification by faith alone y was, by 
way of eminence, the first principle 
of the early reformers. Another 
important principle was this; that 
before regeneration men are totally 
destitute of holiness, and can do 
nothing which is acceptable in the 
sight of God. Other principles were 
the doctrines of predestination, elec- 
tion, conversion by the Spirit of God, 
new obedience, and perseverance. 
Which of these doctrines is contend- 
ed for by the liberal party in this 
country, or denied by the orthodox? 
But let us look at another class of 
principles. Protestants have uni- 
formly held, that the Scriptures are 
the only and sufficient rule of faith 
and practice; that Popish traditions 
are of no authority; and that the 
decisions of councils are not infalli- 
ble. Have the orthodox in this 
country ever denied either of these 
principles? If they have, it is new 
to us. Perhaps the orthodox have 
been unwilling to put the Scriptures 
into the hands of the common peo- 
ple in their mother tongue? If so, 
let the offence be proved. Let the 
guilty individuals be named; and we 
will heartily join in their condemna- 
tion. But it will be said, perhaps, 
that the orthodox have a creed, or 
creeds; in other words, they ex- 



Postscript to the Secoitd Edition, 



31 



press, by a short summary, the 
principal doctrines, which they be- 
lieve the Scriptures to contain. 
This is true; and it is precisely 
what all the Protestant churches 
have uniformly done, in perfect 
consistency with every principle of 
the Reformation. Let us hear no 
more of this miserable cant about 
Protestantism. The complaint is 
absolutely without foundation. As 
well might it be said, that the In- 
quisition of Goa, having travelled 
across the Indian and Atlantic 
oceans, (palaces, caverns and all,) 
has seated himself on Beacon hill; 
and that father Josephus a Dolori- 
bus sits there, on his black marble 
throne, daily sentencing the "wor- 
thy confessors" of Unitarianism to 
his subterranean dungeons. The 
liberal party are net contending for 
the privilege of thinking for them- 
selves. This has never been denied 
them in this country. But they are 
contending for the privilege of 
thinking for themselves and the or- 
thodox toe; at least so far as to pre- 
scribe the manner, in which the or- 
thodox shall regard them. While 
they mutilate the New Testament, 
and reject nearly all the fundamen- 
tal doctrines of the Gospel; while 
they degrade the Savior to the con- 
dition of a fallible, peccable, and 

ignorant man; they clamorously 

insist, that the orthodox should 
have just as good an opinion of them 
as they have of themselves, and 
should acknowledge them to be 
candid, impartial, enlightened, pi- 
ous Christians. This is requiring 
too much. While they demand the 
privilege of thinking and acting for 
themselves, let them accord the 
same privilege to others. 

Mr. Belsham predicts, that the 
time will come when the truth, by 



which he means Unitarianism, will 
burst forth, in this country, "in all 
her glory." Fired at the thought, 
he indulges in the following figura- 
tive language, with which the his- 
tory concludes. 

. "The dull hollow rumbling at the bot- 
tom of the sea, which is scarcely noticed 
by the inattentive traveller who is gliding 
carelessly over the solid plate of ice which 
encrusts the surface, is, to the wary and 
experienced observer, a sure presage of 
the speedy and sudden explosion of the 
immense superincumbent mass, and of the 
restoration of the imprisoned waves to 
their native freedom, to the consternation 
and often to the utter destruction of those 
who refuse to listen to the friendly pre- 
monition." 

This is a fair and generous warn- 
ing. We have heard "the dull hol- 
low rumbling at the bottom of the 
sea." We exhort the churches "to 
listen to the friendly premonition;" 
lest, when the fountains of the great 
deep shall be broken ufi s those who 
are careless and inattentive should 
be overwhelmed by "the imprison- 
ed waves" to "their consternation 
and utter destruction!" 



[P. S. TO THE SECOND EDITION.] 

We find that the assertion, con- 
tained in the foregoing review, that 
"the predominant religion of. the 
liberal party is decidedly Unitarian, 
in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word," 
has been misunderstood by some 
readers. It is sufficient to say here, 
that we are prepared to defend the 
assertion, in what appears to us the 
natural meaning of the words. The 
Rev. Mr. Channing's letter on this 
subject will probably be considered 
in a future number of the Panoplist. 



NOTICE. 

The Panopltst, from which the foregoing Review ha9been taken, is published every 
month by SAMUEL T. ARMSTRONG, Boston, price g2 40 a year; the eleventh 
volume is now printing; tliirty-seven hundred and fifty copies are printed and sold 
every month, and many mote could be disposed of Subscriptions for the ensuing 
volume, or sets of the whole -work, will be attended to promptly; at g2 75 per vol- 
ume. The profits arising from the work are employed in diffusing the light of th? 
Oospel in our own and in foreign countries. 




Offers for sale a large assortrueut of very valuable 
THEOLOGICAL, CLASSICAL, LAW, AND MISCELLANEOUS 



BOOKS. 



Scott's, Carey's, and Collin>'s Family BIBLES, from §3:50 to 64:50 a copy. SERMONS, 

by most of the Eminent Divines of ancient or modern times. CHRISTIAN PSALMODY, a 

work well adapted to the present age, and worthy the attention of all who think of changing their 
Singing Books; its merits could not be enumerated in this place. -Life of Mrs. HARRIET 
NEWELL, price 75 cents. Writings of Miss FANNY WOODBURY, 75 cents. 

He has in press the first volume of Dr. Emmons's Sermons, second edition — albo, Life, Letters, 
aDd Poems of Henry K. White, 2 vols. 2 dolls, bound and lettered. 



Very good, and very cheap edition of 

SCOTT'S FAMILY BIBLE, 

Is to be published by Samuel T. Armstrong, by whom, and by many of the REV. CLERGY 
in New England, subscriptions are received, on the following very EASY CONDITIONS. 

The whole to be Comprised in six royal octavo volumes, one volume to be 
published every three months at §3,00 each, in boards, or S3, 50 well bound 
in sheep and lettered; with an allowance to ail who procure subscribers of 
gQ-EVERY SIXTH COPY GRATIS!^ Thus for the trifling sum of 
25 cents a week can this in vat nab ie work be had by every person. 

Please to observe, on the above terms, where the Members of a family, or where neighbors 

join and take six copies, they come to only 15 dollars a set in boards, or §17,50 well bound ia 

sheep ar.d lettered. When an individual procures the names and delivers the volumes, he has the 

6lh copy as a compensation for his trouble. Q3*Naaies of Subscribers will be inserted in the work. 

Extracts from Letters to the Publisher. 

"This most excellent and useful work I ardently wish was in every family in the United States." 

Rev. Dr. Morse. 
"I esteem Dr. Scott's Family Bible eminently calculated to promote the oause of religion and piety.*' 

Rev Dr. Griffin. 
"It is a treasure EVERY FAMILY ought to possess. For the success of your undertaking" 
you have my best wishes and fervent prayers." Rev. Asa Eaton. 

"i he more it is read by pious Christians the more extensive will be its circulation." 

Rev. Daniel Sharp. 
"Next to the Bible she valued SCOTT'S COMMENTARY, as it afforded her much assist- 
ance in discovering and improving the deep wisdom of God, revealed in the Lively Oracles." 

Fanny Woodbury, p. 6. 
Letters from the Rev. l)rs. Holmes, Baldwin, Dana and Sanders, and Rev. Messrs. Kates, 
Huntington ai.d Win chef 1 have recently been received; they will appear in order and in full on th* 
Cover at' the i'anophst, g£y bHtbscriptton Papers may be had gratis at No. 50, CorohSL 



LETTER 



REV. SAMUEL C. THACHER, 



ASPERSIONS CONTAINED IN A LATE NUMBER OF THE PANOPLIST, 

ON THE MINISTERS OP BOSTON AND THE VICINITY. 



BT 

WILLIAM E. CHANNING, 

Minister of the Church of Christ in Federal Street, Boston. 



SECOND EDITION. 



BOSTON: 

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY WELLS AMD ULLT. 

1815. 



A LETTER, &c. 



MY FRIEND AND BROTHER, 

I have recollected with much satisfaction the conversa- 
tion, which we held the other morning, on the subject of the 
late Review in the Panoplist for June, of a pamphlet, called 
u American Unitarianism." I was not surprised, but I was 
highly gratified, by the spirit with which you spoke of thaf 
injurious publication. Grief rather than indignation marked 
your countenance, and you mourned, that men, who bear 
the sacred and pacifick name of Christian, could prove so 
insensible to the obligations of their profession. Our con- 
versation turned, as you recollect, on the falsehood of that 
Review ; on its motives ; and on the duties which are 
imposed on those ministers, whose good name and whose 
influence it was designed to destroy. 

After leaving you, my thoughts still dwelt on the subject ; 
and, painful as is the task, I have thought it my duty to 
exhibit to the publick the topicks which we discussed, as 
well as to add some reflections suggested by private medi- 
tation. 

I bring to the subject a feeling, which I cannot well 
express in words, but which you can easily understand. 
It is a feeling, as if I were degrading myself by noticing the 
false and injurious charges contained in this review. I feel 
as if I were admitting, that we need vindication, that our 



reputations want support, that our characters and lives do 
not speak for themselves. My selfrespect too is wounded, 
by coming into contact with assailants, who not only deny 
us the name of Christians, but withhold from us the treat- 
ment of gentlemen. These feelings, united with my love 
of peace, would induce me to pass over the Review in 
silence, if it were limited to the sphere within which we 
are personally known. In this sphere, I trust, its bitter- 
ness, coarseness, and misrepresentations will work their 
own cure ; and that no other defence is required, but the 
tenour of our ministry and lives. But the work, in which 
this article is published, is industriously spread through the 
country, and through all classes of society. The asper- 
sions which it contains are also diffused, as widely as pos- 
sible, by conversation and even by newspapers. We owe 
then to ourselves, and what is more important to the cause 
of christian truth and charity, some remarks on the repre* 
sentations and spirit of the Review. You can easily con- 
ceive, how difficult it is to read again and again such a pub- 
lication without catching some portion of an unchristian 
spirit. I do indeed feel myself breathing an atmosphere to 
which I am not accustomed. But my earnest desire is to 
remember whose disciple I am, and to temper displeasure 
with meekness and forgiveness. 

The Panoplist Review, though extended over so many 
pages, may be compressed into a very narrow space. It 
asserts, 1. That the ministers of this town and its vicinity, 
and the great body of liberal christians are Unitarians in 
Mr. Belsham's sense of the word : that is, they believe 
that Jesus Christ is a mere man, who when on earth was 
liable to errour and sin ; to whom we owe no gratitude for 
benefits which we are now receiving ; and for whose future 
interposition we have no reason to hope. 



2. The Review asserts, that these ministers and liberal 
christians are guilty of hypocritical concealment of their 
sentiments, and behave in a base, cowardly and hypocri- 
tical manner. 

3. Christians are called to come out and separate them- 
selves from these ministers and the liberal body of christians, 
and to withhold from them christian communion. 

I will consider these three heads in their order, and may 
then notice some other topicks introduced into the Review. 

The first assertion to be considered is, that the ministers 
of this town and vicinity, and the great body of liberal chris- 
tians are Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense of that word ; 
and I wish every reader to look back and distinctly impress 
this sense on his memory. I am sensible that almost every 
liberal christian,* who reads these pages, will regard this 
charge with a mixture of surprise and indignation, and will 
almost doubt the correctness of my statement of the Re- 
view. I therefore add the following extracts from the last 
number of the Panoplist, in which the Review is contained. 
(P. 267.) "We feel entirely warranted to say that the 
predominant religion of the liberal party is decidedly 
Unitarian, in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word." P. 254, 
" We shall feel ourselves warranted hereafter, to speak of 
the fact as certain, that Unitarianism," meaning Mr. Bel- 
sham's, " is the predominant religion among the ministers and 
churches of Boston." P. 271, " The liberal party mutilate 
the New Testament, reject nearly all the fundamental doc- 
trines of the gospel, and degrade the Saviour to the condition 
of a fallible, peccable, and ignorant man." It is unnecessary 
to multiply extracts to show, that not only Boston, but its 
vicinity, is involved in the charge. In fact, the liberal 
party, in general, as you see, is ranged under the standard 
of Mr. Belsham. Now we both of us know this statement 

* See Note A. 



to be false. This misrepresentation is founded chiefly on 
some letters written by the Rev. Dr. Freeman, and Mr. 
William Wells, of Boston, to the Rev. Mr. Lindsey and 
the Rev. Mr. Belsham, of London ; which letters state, 
that many of the ministers and laymen of this quarter are 
Unitarian. You informed me in our late conversation, that 
Mr. Wells has assured you, that in his letter to Mr. Bel- 
sham, he used the word Unitarian in its proper and usual 
sense, as opposed to Trinitarian, as denoting a man who 
believes that God is one person, and not three persons. 
That Dr. Freeman attached the same meaning to the word, 
I cannot doubt, because I have once and again heard him 
give this very definition. If you will consult Miss Adams' 
View of Religions, the only authority which I have at hand, 
you will see, that this term belongs to persons, who differ 
widely in their views of Jesus Christ. She particularly 
quotes Mosheim, as saying, that Unitarians are Anti-Trini- 
tarians. "The Socinians," Mosheim adds, "are also so 
" called. The term is comprehensive, and is applicable to a 
"great variety of persons, who, notwithstanding, agree in 
" this common principle, that there is no distinction in the 
" Divine nature." The word Unitarian, taken in this its 
true sense, as including all who believe that there is no dis- 
tinction of persons in God, is indeed, as Mosheim observes, 
of great extent. Dr. Watts, in the latter part of his life, 
was decidedly an Unitarian. So was Dr. Samuel Qlarke ; 
so was the late Dr. Eckley,^ of this town ; so, I am told by 
respectable authorities, are several Hopkinsian clergymen 
in New-England. The word Unitarianism, as denoting 
this opposition to Trinitarianism, undoubtedly expresses 
the character of a considerable part of the ministers of this 
town and its vicinity, and the commonwealth. But we both 
of us know, that their Unitarianism is of a very different 

* See Note B. 



kind from that of Mr. Belsham. We both agreed in our 
late conference, that a majority of our brethren believe, that 
Jesus Christ is more than man, that he existed before the 
world, that he literally came from heaven to save our race, 
that he sustains other offices than those of a teacher and 
witness to the truth, and that he still acts for our benefit, and 
is our intercessor with the Father. This we agreed to be 
the prevalent sentiment of our brethren. There is another 
class of liberal christians, who, whilst they reject the dis- 
tinction of three persons in God, are yet unable to pass a 
definitive judgment on the various systems, which prevail, 
as to the nature and rank of Jesus Christ. They are met 
by difficulties on every side", and generally rest in the con- 
clusion, that He, whom God has appointed to be our Sa- 
viour, must be precisely adapted to his work, and that ac- 
ceptable faith consists in regarding and following him as 
our Lord, Teacher, and Saviour ; without deciding on his 
nature or rank in the universe. There is another class, who 
believe the simple humanity of Jesus Christ ; but these form 
a small proportion of the great body of Unitarians in this part 
of our country ; and I very much doubt, whether of these, 
one individual can be found, who could conscientiously sub- 
scribe to Mr. Belsham's creed as given in the Review. The 
conduct of the Reviewer, in collecting all the opinions of 
that gentleman, not only on the Trinity, but on every other 
theological subject, in giving to the whole collection the 
name of Unitarianism, and in exhibiting this to the world 
as the creed of liberal christians in this region, is perhaps 
as criminal an instance of unfairness, as is to be found in the 
records of theological controversy. The fact is, that the 
great body of liberal christians would shrink from some of 
these opinions with as much aversion as from some of the 
gloomy doctrines of Calvin. You, my friend, well know, 
that Mr. Belsham is not acknowledged as a leader by any 
Unitarians in our country. I have heard from those, who 



8 

are (bought to approach him most Hcarlj in opinion, com- 
plaints of the extravagance of some of his positions, as unjust 
and prejudicial to the cause which he has undertaken to 
defend. 

I trust, that the statement which has now been made, will 
not be considered as casting the least reproach on those 
amongst us, who believe in the simple humanity of Jesus 
Christ. Whilst I differ from them in opinion, I have cer- 
tainly no disposition to deny them the name and privileges 
of christians. There are gentlemen of this class, whom I 
have the happiness to know, in whom I discover the evi- 
dences of a scrupulous uprightness, and a genuine piety ; 
and there are others, whose characters, as portrayed by 
their biographers, appear to me striking examples of the 
best influences of Christianity. 

After considering the letters of Mr. Wells and Dr. Free- 
man, it is not necessary to enlarge on the other evidences 
of our adopting Mr. Belsham's creed, which have been 
adduced by the Reviewer. The Monthly Anthology is 
summoned as a proof. I have read as little of that work as 
of most periodical publications ; but you, who know more of 
it, have expressed to me your confident persuasion, that, 
from beginning to end, the doctrine of the simple humanity 
of Christ is not once asserted. As to the General Reposi- 
tory, which is brought forward as another proof, I never 
for a moment imagined, that its editor was constituted or 
acknowledged as the organ of his brethren ; and while its high 
literary merit has been allowed, I have heard some of its sen- 
timents disapproved by the majority of those with whom I 
have conversed. With respect to the " Improved Version 
of the New Testament," I can speak with greater confidence. 
It is false, that this work was patronized and circulated by 
the ministers of Boston and the vicinity. It is impossible 
that such a fact could have escaped my notice, and I can 



scarcely remember an individual, who, in speaking «^ this 
version, has not expressed an unfavourable opinion at least 
of some of its notes. 

I repeat it, these remarks are not offered for the purpose 
of throwing any reproach on any class of Christians, but 
■imply to repel a statement which is untrue, and which is 
intended to rank us under a denomination, which the people 
of this country have been industriously taught to abhor. It 
is this intention of rendering us odious, which constitutes 
the criminality of the charge, and which exposes its author 
to severe indignation. A man, who is governed by christian 
principles, will slowly and reluctantly become " the accuser 
of his brethren." He will inquire long and impartially be- 
fore he attempts to fasten a bad name, (the most injurious 
method of assailing reputation) on an individual, and espe- 
cially on a large class of the community. What severity 
of reproof then is merited by the author of this Review, 
who has laboured to attach, not only to professors, but to 
ministers of religion, a name and character which he hoped 
would awaken popular alarm, and endanger their influencej 
although a large majority of the accused have no participa- 
tion in the pretended crime. That he intended to deceive, 
I am unwilling to assert ; but the most charitable construc- 
tion which his conduct will admit is, that his passions and 
party spirit have criminally blinded him, and hurried him 
into an act, which could have been authorized only by the 
strongest evidence, and the most impartial inquiry. The 
time may come, when he will view this transaction with 
other eyes ; when the rage of party will have subsided ; 
when the obligation of a fair and equitable temper will 
appear at least as solemn as the obligation of building up a 
sect ; when misrepresentation, intended to injure, and ori- 
ginating, if not in malignity, yet in precipitancy and passion, 
will be felt to be a crime of no common aggravation. That 



10 

this t\iae may soon come, and may bring with it not only 
remorse, but sincere repentance, I know to be your wish, 
and I trust it is my own. 

II. I now come to the second charge of the Review : 
That the ministers of Boston and the vicinity, and the most 
considerable members of the liberal party " operate in 
" secret ; entrust only the initiated with their measures ; are 
" guilty of hypocritical concealment of their sentiments ; 
" behave in a base and hypocritical manner, compared with 
" which Mr. Belsham's conduct, rotten as he is in doctrine 
"to the very core, is purity itself."* Such is the decent 
language scattered through this Review. This charge is 
infinitely more serious than the first. To believe with Mr. 
Belsham is no crime. But artifice, plotting, hypocrisy are 
crimes; and if we practise them, we deserve to be driven 
not only from the ministry, not only from the church, but 
from the society of the decent and respectable. Our own 
hearts, I trust, tell us at once how gross are these asper- 
sions ; and our acquaintance wiih our brethren authorizes 
us to speak in their vindication with the same confidence as 
in our own. 

* We are accused of " the systematick practice of artifice," p. 242 ; 
of " hypocritical concealment," 251; of " coward ce in the conceal- 
ment of our opinions," 260; of " cunn ng and dishonesty," 260; of 
"acting in a base, hypocritical manner," a manner "at which com- 
mon honesty revolts," 260; a manner "incompatible with fidelity or 
integrity," 261. " The conduct of Mr. Belsham," we are told, " rot- 
ten as he is to the very core in point of doctrine, is purity itself, com- 
pared with the conduct of these men," 262. " In pretence all is 
politeness and liberality; in practice we find a rancour bitter as 
death, and cruel as the grave," 264. Let it be remembered that this 
is not to be considered as the invective and exaggeration, which we are 
unhappily accustomed to permit in a political pamphlet. It is found 
in a grave theological publication, and uttered by a man who declares 
that he " never took his pen in hand with greater caution, nor with a 
more imperious sense of duty." 259. 



11 

It is not to be wondered at, that those, who have charged 
us with holding sentiments which we reject, should proceed 
to charge us with hypocritically concealing our sentiments. 
Most of us have often contradicted Mr. Belsham's opinions : 
and they who insist that these opinions are ours, will be 
forced to maintain that we practise deceit. They start 
with a falsehood, and their conclusion cannot therefore be 
true. 

I am not, however, disposed to dismiss this charge of 
artifice and hypocrisy so lightly. The proofs on which it 
rests are perhaps the most extraordinary which were ever 
adduced on so serious an occasion. The first evidence of 
our baseness is a letter from Dr. Freeman. It is unneces- 
sary to enter info any examination of this letter. It is 
sufficient to observe, that it was written, according to the Re- 
view, in the year 1T96 or 1797, that is, it was written when all 
the present congregational ministers in Boston, with the single 
exceji'ion of the venerated Dr. Lathrop, were receiving 
their education either at school or in college, and had not 
probably directed their thoughts towards the sacred office ; 
and before a considerable part of our brethren, now in the 
vicinity, were settled in the ministry. It is a melancholy 
thought, that accusations which would place us among the 
profligate part of society, are bitterly and furiously urged 
on such foundation as this ! 

But the next proof is still more remarkable. It is the 
letter of Mr. Wells to Mr. Belsham. In this letter Mr. 
Wells says, " Most of our Boston clergy and respectable 
" laymen, among whom we have many enlightened theolo- 
" gians, are Unitarian. Nor do they think it at all neces- 
" sary to conceal their sentiments, but express them without 
" reserve when they judge it proper. I may safely say, 
" the general habit of thinking and speaking upon thii 
"question is Unitarian." Can a more explicit passage be 



12 

conceived ? The method in which it is distorted by the 
Reviewer can hardly be recollected without expressions of 
indignation. Towards the close of his Review, p. 269, in 
speaking of the persons on whom Mr. Wells "lavishes 
commendation," he represents him as mentioning " most of 
the Boston clergy and respectable laymen, many of whom 
are enlightened theologians, who do not conceal their senti- 
ments, but express them when they judge it proper." This 
passage, as it stands in the Review, has the marks of quo- 
tation, as if taken from Mr. Wells' letter. Let me ask you 
to look back, and compare it carefully with the second sen- 
tence, which I have extracted from that letter. You per- 
ceive, that by mutilating that sentence, and by printing the 
last words in Italicks, the reviewer has entirely done away 
the meaning of Mr. Wells, and contrived to give to the 
common reader a directly opposite impression to what that 
gentleman intended to Convey. An unperverted mind turns 
with sorrow and disgust from such uncharitable and disin- 
genuous dealing ; and why all this labour to distort what is 
so plain ? The object is, to fix the character of knaves and 
hypocrites on a large class of christians and christian min- 
isters. I might here be permitted to dip my pen in gall ; 
but I do not write for those, whose moral feeling is so dull, 
as to need indignant comment on practices like these. 

With respect to yourself, my friend, I presume no one 
will charge you with hypocritical concealment. Your situ- 
ation offers you no temptation ; and no one who has heard 
you preach, can ever have suspected you of a leaning 
towards Trinitarianism. As to myself, I have ever been 
inclined to cherish the most exalted views of Jesus Christ, 
which are consistent with the supremacy of the Father ; and 
I have felt it my duty to depart from Mr. Belsham, in 
perhaps every sentiment which is peculiar to him on this 
subject. I have always been pleased with some of the 
sentiments of Dr. Watts on the intimate and peculiar union 



13 

between the Father and the Son. But I hare always ab- 
stained most scrupulously from every expression which 
could be construed into an acknowledgment of the Trinity. 
My worship and sentiments have been Unitarian in the 
proper sense of that word. In conversation with my peo- 
ple, who have requested my opinion upon the subject, 
especially with those who consider themselves Trinitarians, 
I have spoken with directness and simplicity. Some of 
those who differ from me most widely, have received from 
me the most explicit assurances of my disbelief of the 
doctrine of the Trinity, and of my views in relation to the 
Saviour. As to my brethren in general, never have I 
imagined for a moment, from their preaching or conversa- 
tion, that they had the least desire to be considered as 
Trinitarians ; nor have I ever heard from them any views 
of God or of Jesus Christ, but Unitarian in the proper 
meaning of that word. 

It is indeed true, as Mr. Wells says, that we seldom or 
never introduce the Trinitarian controversy into our pulpits. 
We are accustomed to speak of the Father as God, and of 
Jesus Christ as his son, as a distinct being from him, as 
dependent on him, subordinate to him, and deriving all from 
him. This phraseology pervades all our prayers, and all 
our preaching. We seldom or never, however, refer to 
any different sentiments, embraced by other christians, on 
the nature of God or of Jesus Christ. We preach pre- 
cisely as if no such doctrine as the Trinity had ever been 
known. We do not attempt to refute it, any more than to 
refute the systems of the Sabellians, the Eutychians, or the 
Nestorians, or of the other sects who have debated these 
questions with such hot and unprofitable zeal. But, in fol- 
lowing this course, we are not conscious of having con- 
tracted, in the least degree, the guilt of insincerity. We 
have aimed at making no false impression. We have only 
followed a general system, which we are persuaded to be 



14 

best for our people and for the cause of Christianity ; the 
system of excluding controversy as much as possible from 
our pulpits. In compliance with this system, 1 have never 
assailed Trinitarianism ; nor have .1 ever said one word 
against Methodism, Quakerism, Episcopalianism, or the 
denomination of Baptists ; and I may add Popery, if I ex- 
cept a few occasional remarks on the intolerance of that 
system. The name of these sects, with that single excep- 
tion, has never passed my lips in preaching, through my 
whole ministry, which has continued above twelve rears. 
We all of us think it best to preach the truth, or what we 
esteem to be the truth, and to say very little about emur, 
unless it be errour of a strictly practical nature. A Bti ik ag 
proof of our sentiments and habits on this subject maj be 
derived from the manner in which you and myself have 
treated Calvinism. We consider the errours which relate 
to Christ's person as of little or no importance compared 
with the errour of those who teach, that God brings us into 
life wholly depraved and wholly helpless, that he leaves 
multitudes without that aid which is indispensably necessary 
to their repentance, and then plunges them into everlasting 
burnings and unspeakable torture, for not repenting. This 
we consider as one of the most injurious errours which ever 
darkened* the christian world; and none will pretend that we 
have any thing to fear from exposing this errour to our people. 
On the contrary ,we could hardly select a more popular topick ; 
— and yet our hearers will bear witness how seldom we intro- 
duce this topick into our preaching. The name of Calvinist 
has never, I presume, been uttered by us in the pulpit. Our 
method is, to state what we conceive to be more honourable, 
and ennobling, and encouraging views of God's character 
and government, and to leave these to have their effect, 
without holding up other christians to censure or contempt. 
We could, if we were to make strenuous efforts, render the 



15 

»ame of Calvinist as much a word of reproach in our so- 
cieties, as that of Unitarian is in some parts of our country. 
But we esteem it a solemn duty to disarm instead of exci- 
ting the bad passions of our people. We wish to promote 
among them a spirit of universal charity. We wish to 
make them condemn their own bad practices, rather than 
the erroneous speculations of their neighbour. We love 
them too sincerely to imbue them with the spirit of contro- 
yersy. 

In thus avoiding controversy, we have thought that we 
deserved, not reproach, but some degree of praise for our 
■elf denial. Every preacher knows how much easier it is 
to write a controversial than a practical discourse ; how 
much easier it is to interest an audience by attacking an op- 
posite party, than by stating to them the duties and motives 
of the gospel. We often feel, that our mode of preaching 
exposes us to the danger of being trite and dull ; and I 
presume we have often been tempted to gratify the love of 
disputation which lurks in every society. But so deeply 
are we convinced, that the great end of preaching is to pro- 
mote a spirit of love, a sober, righteous and godly life, and 
that every doctrine is to be urged simply and exclusively 
for this end, that we have sacrificed our ease, and have 
chosen to be less striking preachers, rather than to enter 
the lists of controversy. 

We have seldom or never assailed the scheme of the 
Trinity, not only from our dislike to controversy in general, 
but from a persuasion that this discussion would, above all 
others, perplex and needlessly perplex a common congre- 
gation, consisting of persons of all ages, capacities, degrees 
of improvement, and conditions in society. This doctrine 
we all regard as the most unintelligible about which chris- 
tians have ever disputed. If it do not mean that there are 
Three Gods, (a construction which its advocates indignant- 



16 

iy repel,) we know not what it means; and we hare not 
thought that we should edify common hearers by attacking 
a doctrine, altogether inconceivable and wholly beyond the 
grasp of our faculties. — We have recollected too the mis- 
chiefs of the Trinitarian controversy in past ages, that it 
has been a firebrand lighting the flames of persecution, 
and kindling infernal passions in the breasts of christians ; 
and we have felt no disposition to interest the feelings of 
our congregation in a dispute, which has so disgraced the 
professed disciples of the meek and lowly Jesus. — Many of 
us have been disinclined, not only to assail systems which 
we do not believe, but even to enforce the views which we 
have given of the rank and character of Jesus Christ ; be- 
cause we have known, how divided the best men have been 
on these topicks, and how largely we ourselves partake of the 
fallibility of our nature ; because we have wished, that our 
hearers should derive their impressions on these points as 
much as possible from the scriptures ; and because we have 
all been persuaded, that precision of views upon these sub- 
jects is in no degree essential to the faith or practice of a 
christian.-— We have considered the introduction of the 
Trinitarian controversy into the pulpit, as the less necessa- 
ry, because we have generally found that common christians 
admit that distinction between God and his Son, and that sub- 
ordination of the Son, which we believe to be the truth ; and 
as to that very small part of our hearers, who are strongly 
attached to the doctrine of the Trinity, while we have not 
wished to conceal from them our difference of opinion, we 
have been fully satisfied, that the most effectual method of 
promoting their holiness and salvation was to urge on them 
perpetually those great truths and precepts, about which 
there is little contention, and which have an immediate 
bearing on the temper and the life. — To conclude, we have 
never entered into discussions of the doctrine of the Tri- 



17 

*iity» because we are not governed by a proselyting temper. 
I will venture to assert, that there is not on earth a body of 
men who possess less of the spirit of prosely tism, than the 
ministers of this town and vicinity. Accustomed as we are 
to see genuine piety in all classes of christians, in Trinita- 
rians and Unitarians, in Calvinists and Arminians, in Epis- 
copalians, Methodists, Baptists, and Congregationalists, and 
delighting in this character wherever it appears, we are little 
anxious to bring men over to our peculiar opinions. I could 
smile at the idea of a Unitarian plot, were not this fiction 
intended to answer so unworthy an end. There cannot be 
a doubt, that had we seriously united for the purpose of 
spreading Unitarianism by any and every means, by secret 
insinuations against those who differ from us> by uncharita- 
ble denunciations, and by the other usual arts of sects, we 
might have produced in this part of the country an Unita- 
rian heat and bitterness not inferiour to that with which 
Trinitarianism is too often advocated. But not the slight- 
est whisper of any concert for this end has ever reached 
me ; and as to these arts, our people can best say. how far 
we have practised them. Our people will testify, how lit- 
tle we have sought to influence them on the topick& of dis- 
pute among christians, how tittle we have laboured to make 
them partisans, how constantly we have besought them to 
look with candour on other denominations, and to delight in 
all the marks which others exhibit of piety, and goodness. 
Our great and constant object has been to promote the 
spirit of Christ, and we have been persuaded, that in this 
way we should most effectually promote the interests of 
christian truth. 

These remarks will shew, how entirely unfounded are the 
charges, which are adduced against us, of insincerity and 
base hypocrisy. And are we not authorized, my brother, 
to repel these charges with some degree of warmth ? Are 

3 



we not called to speak in the language of indignant and in- 
sulted virtue, as well as of pity and sorrow, in relation to the 
man, who is propagating these unmerited reproaches ? We 
are christians by profession, and ministers of the Gospel, 
governed, as we humbly hope, by the principles of Jesus 
Christ. We honour his name ; we remember his dying 
love with gratitude ; and I hope we are ready to meet the 
loss of all things in his service ; and yet we are represented 
to our people as unprincipled men, wearing a mask, and 
practising the basest arts. And we are thus loaded with 
invective and abuse, that we may be robbed of that influ- 
ence, which, if we know ourselves, we wish to exert for the 
honour of God, and the salvation of mankind ; that we may 
be robbed of the confidence and affection of our societies, 
and may be forsaken by them as unworthy the christian 
name. Need I ask, whether this be a light injury or an 
ordinary crime ? 

On the present occasion, when our moral character 
is impeached, we are justified, I think, in an appeal to 
our respective societies ; and I trust, my friend, that we 
and our accused brethren can say with confidence to those 
to whom we minister, " Brethren, you know us, for we 
live among you ; we visit you in your families, we speak to 
you from the pulpit ; we repair to you in your sorrows, and 
we sit too at the table of your festivity. You know some- 
thing of our conduct in our families, and in the common 
relations of life. We are, indeed sensible, that in all these 
situations, we have exhibited to you much of human imper- 
fection, and our frequent prayer to God is, that he will for- 
give our deficiences. But, brethren, we ask you to recol- 
lect our general deportment and ministrations. Have we 
seemed to you men of artifice and deceit, men without rev- 
erence for truth, and without the fear of God, men of sordid 
and selfish views, seeking your wealth or applause, and 
careless of your souls ? Have we ever seemed to you to be 



19 

labouring to build up a cause, or to establish a party, which 
we were ashamed to acknowledge 1 Have we ever directed 
you to any foundation of hope or guide of life, but the Gos- 
pel of Christ ? Have we not continually exhorted you, as a 
father doth his children, that you would walk worthy of this 
religion from heaven ? In your affliction have we not {sup- 
plied you with the consolations which it offers ? and in the 
more dangerous seasons of enjoyment, have we not discov- 
ered the purity and moderation which it inculcates 1 To 
what work of christian usefulness have you found us reluc- 
tant ? In what relation of life have you found us unfaithful ? 
On what occasion have we discovered, that our profession 
is a cloak of hypocrisy ? It is not our design, by these 
questions, to advance our own glory ; God forbid it : But 
we wish to impress you deeply with the criminality of those 
aspersions, which are cast habitually on your teachers ; and 
with the urgent necessity of discouraging that unrelenting 
party spirit, which has no respect for innocence or virtue, 
and which threatens to overwhelm our churches with dis- 
cord and contention." 

III. I now come to the third head of the Review, which 
I propose to consider. The Reviewer, having charged us 
with holding the opinions of Mr. Belsham, and hypocritical- 
ly concealing them, solemnly calls on christians who differ 
from us in sentiment, " to come out and be separate from 
us, and to withhold communion with us ;" and a paragraph 
of the bitterest contempt and insult is directed against those 
ministers who,whilst they disagree on the controverted points 
of theology, are yet disposed to love and treat us as brethren. 
This language does not astonish me, when I recollect the 
cry of heresy which has been so loudly raised against this 
part of the country. But I believe that this is the first in- 
stance, in which christians have been deliberately called to 
deny us the christian name and privileges. As such let it 



20 

be remembered ; and let the consequences of it lie on its- 
authors. 

Why is it that our brethren are thus instigated to cut us 
off, as far as they have power, from the body and church of 
Christ ? Let every christian weigh well the answer. It is 
not because we refuse to acknowledge Jesus Christ as our 
Lord and Master ; it is not because we neglect to study his 
word ; it is not, because our lives are wanting in the spirit 
and virtues of his gospel. It is, because after serious in- 
vestigation, we cannot find in the Scriptures, and cannot 
adopt as instructions of our Master, certain doctrines, which 
have divided the church for ages, which have perplexed 
the best and wisest men, and which are very differently 
conceived even by those who profess to receive them. It 
is, in particular, because we cannot adopt the language of 
our brethren, in relation to a doctrine, which we cannot un- 
derstand, and which is expressed in words not only unau- 
thorized by the Scripture, but as we believe, in words em- 
ployed without meaning, (unless they mean that there are 
three Gods,) by those who insist upon them. This is our 
crime, that we cannot think and speak with our brethren on 
subjects the most difficult and perplexing, on which the hu- 
man mind was ever engaged. For this we are pursued with 
the cry of heresy, and are to have no rest until virtually ex- 
communicated by our brethren, 

Were the christian world more enlightened on the 
nature of heresy, they would not be so much alarmed 
when they hear it attached to their brethren. Most 
earnestly do I wish that the Dissertation of Dr. Camp- 
bell on Heresy, in his " Translation of the Four Gos- 
pels," were more generally read and considered. He 
has proved, I think, very satisfactorily, that heresy, as the 
word is used in the Scriptures, does not consist in the adop- 
tion or profession of wrong opinions, but in a spirit of divi- 
sion, of dissension, of party, in a factious and turbulent 



21 

temper ; and that the here tick is not a man who entertaini 
erroneous or even injurious sentiments, but one who loves 
to be called Rabbi and master ; who has a disposition to 
separate christians, to create or to extend sects and parties. 
The conclusion of the Dissertation of this most judicious 
writer on Heresy, deserves to be imprinted on every mind 
in these days of dissension. " No person, who, in the spirit 
" of candour and charity, adheres to that which to the best 
"of his judgment is right, though in this opinion he should 
"be mistaken, is in the scriptural sense either schismatick 
" or heretick ; and he, on the contrary, whatever sect he 
" belongs to, is more entitled to these odious appellations, 
"who is most apt to throw the imputation upon others. 
* Both terms, (for they denote only different degrees of 
c: the same bad quality,) always indicate a disposition and 
"practice unfriendly to peace and harmony and love."* 
If these views be correct, there is no difficulty in deciding, 
to what persons among us the name of heretick most justly 
belongs ; and we shall be forced to conclude, that of all pub- 
lications which have issued from our press, no one is more 
tinctured with the spirit of heresy, than the Review, which 
it is my painful office to examine. 

Most earnestly do I hope that christians will weigh well 
the nature and guilt of schism, the consequences of separa- 
tion, and the spirit of their religion, before they adopt the 
measure recommended in this Review. For myself, the 
universe would not tempt me to bear a part in this work of 
dividing Christ's church, and of denouncing his followers. 
If there be an act which, above all others, is a transgression 
of the christian law, it is this. What is the language of our 
Master ? w A new commandment I give unto you, that 
ye love one another. By this shall all men know, that 
ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." 

* Campbell's Gospels, Vol. II. p. 141, Boston edition. 



m 

" Bear ye one another's burdens," says St. Paul, "and so ful- 
fil the law of Christ^ But what says this Review ? " Cast 
out your brethren, and treat them as heathens." I know it 
will be said, that christians are not called upon to reject real 
christians, but hereticks and false pretenders to the name. 
But heresy, we have seen, is not a false opinion, but a sec- 
tarian spirit ; and as to false pretences, we desire those 
who know us, to put their hands on their hearts, and to say, 
whether they can for a moment believe that we hypocritical- 
ly profess to follow the instructions of Jesus Christ 1 Does 
charity discover nothing in our language and lives to justify 
the hope that we are united to Jesus Christ by love for his 
character, and by participation of his spirit ? Most earnest- 
ly would I advise those persons who are inclined to follow 
the instigations of this Review, to think seriously before 
tbey act ; to remember, that Jesus Christ has solemnly for- 
bidden uncharitable judgment, that he regards the injuries 
which are done to his followers, through a censorious spirit, 
as done to himself, and that christians cannot more surely 
forsake their Lord, the Prince of peace, than by following 
an inciter to denunciation and division. 

I wish that my motives for these earnest remonstrances 
against division may be understood. I feel as little person- 
al interest in«the subject as any individual in the community. 
Were the proposed separation to take place, I should still 
enjoy the ordinances of the gospel in the society of those 
whom I best love. The excommunication which is threat- 
ened gives me no alarm. I hear this angry thunder mur- 
mur at a distance, with as little concern as if it were the thun- 
der of the pope, from whom it seems indeed to be borrowed. 
But whilst I fear nothing for myself, I do fear and feel for 
that body of which Christ is the head, which has been 
bleeding for ages under the contests of christians, and which 
is now threatened with a new wound. I feel for the cause 



23 

of our common Christianity, which I am set to defend, and 
which ha3 suffered inconceivably more from the bad pas- 
sions and divisions of its friends, than from all the arts and 
violence of its foes. I cannot but look forward with pain to 
the irritations, hatreds, bitter recriminations, censoriousness, 
spiritual pride, and schismatical spirit which will grow up 
under this system of denunciation and exclusion, and which 
may not only convulse many churches at the present mo- 
ment, but will probably end in most unhappy divisions 
among the very christians who denounce us ; who seem 
indeed to be united, now that a common enemy is to be 
trodden under foot, but who have sufficient diversities of 
opinion, to awaken against each other all the fury of into- 
lerance, when this shall have become the temper and habit 
of their minds. I repeat it, I have no interest in this 
point, but as a christian ; and as such, I look with a degree 
of horrour on this attempt to inflame and distract our church- 
es. Errour of opinion is an evil too trifling to be named in 
comparison with this practical departure from the Gospel, 
with this proud, censorious, overbearing temper, which says 
to a large body of christians, " stand off, Ave are holier than 

you." 

Before I leave this question of separation, let me just ob- 
serve, that by this Review, not only we antl our brethren 
are cut off from the body of Christ ; but the most venera- 
ble men who have left us, and who, when living, were es- 
teemed ornaments of the church, such men as the late 
President Willard, Dr. Howard, Dr. Eckley, Dr. Eliot, 
and Dr. Barnard, are declared unworthy of the communion 
©f the church on earth, and of course unfit for the fellowship 
of saints in heaven. It would be easy to show, that the 
same dreadful sentence is past on some of the most exem- 
plary men in civil life, to whom this commonwealth is 
indebted for the stability of its civil and religious iastitu- 



24 

lions.* These all having lived, as they thought, in the 
faith of Christ, and having died with a hope in his precious 
promises, are now cut off from his church, and denied his 
name. What christian does not shudder at this awful te- 
merity in a frail and erring fellow-being, who thus presumes 
to sit in judgment on men, who in purity and sincerity and 
devotion to God, were certainly not inferiour to himself ? 
stop here, for I wish not to indulge in language of severity ; 
and this subject, if any, may be left to speak for itself to the 
heart of the christian. 

Having thus considered the three principal heads in the 
Review, I now proceed, as I proposed, to offer a few words 
of friendly admonition, as to the temper and conduct which 
become our brethren and ourselves, under the injuries which 
we receive. The first suggestion you have undoubtedly 
anticipated. It is, that we remember the great duty 
which belongs to us as christians, of regarding our enemies 
with good will, if possible with a degree of approbation, at 
least with displeasure tempered with compassion. We 
profess to accord with that apostle, who has taught us that 
charity is greater than faith and hope, more excellent than 
the tongue of angels and the understanding of all mysteries. 
Let us prove our sincerity by our deeds. Let us cheerful- 
ly avail ourselves of every circumstance, which will justify 
the belief, that the cruel and bitter remarks of our adversa- 
ries proceed not from a wanton and unblushing contempt of 
truth, but from deep rooted prejudices, false views of reli- 
gion, unsuspected biasses to censoriousness, and a disor- 

* Were it an Object to enumerate all who are involved in this sweep- 
ing sentence of condemnation, I might mention Locke, Newton, Gro- 
tius, Dr. Samuel Clarke, Lardner, Price, Paley, and other names most 
conspicuous among the friends of science and religion. AH these were 
decided Unitarians ; and can any imagine that Christianity is to be 
promoted by driving these men from the christian church ? 



dered imagination ; and whilst we lament that they do not 
partake more largely of the best influences of the gospel, 
let us be induced to hope that their profession of the gos- 
pel is sincere, and that their departure from its spirit is un- 
known to themselves. As to the great mass of those chris- 
tians, who view us with so much jealousy, we must remem- 
ber, that they know us only by report, that they believe as 
they are taught by men to whom they ascribe an eminent 
sanctity, and that they are liable to be carried away on this, 
as on every other subject, by loud assertion, and by ad- 
dresses to their fears. Accustomed as they are to hear us 
branded with names and epithets, to which they have at- 
tached no definite ideas, but which seem to them to express 
every thing depraved, can we wonder that they shrink from 
us with a kind of terrour ? Towards this great class of our 
opposers, we certainly owe nothing but kindness ; and we 
should esteem it an unspeakable happiness, that we can look 
with so much pleasure and hope on those by whom we are 
dreaded and shunned ; that we are not obliged by our sys- 
tem to regard our adversaries as the enemies of God, and 
the objects of his wrath. On this point, above all others, 
I would be urgent. Our danger is, that reproach will hurry 
us into language or conduct unbecoming the spirit of our 
master. Let us remember that our opposers cannot ulti- 
mately injure us, unless we permit them to awaken bad pas- 
sions, and to impair our virtues. Let us remember what is 
due from us to our religion. The more that our age is un- 
charitable, the more that the glory of the gospel is obscured 
by its being exhibited as a source of censoriousness and 
contention, the more we owe it to our Lord to wipe off this 
reproach from his truth, to shew the loveliness of his reli- 
gion, to show its power in changing the heart into the image 
of divine forbearance and forgiveness. Is the gospel at 
this moment receiving deep wounds in the house ©f its 
4 



26 

friends ? Let us guard with new jealousy its interests and 
honour. 

The second suggestion I would offer, is this. Whilst we 
disapprove and lament the unchristian spirit of some of our 
opposers, and the efforts which are used to make us odious, 
let us yet acknowledge that there is kindness in that 
Providence, which permits this trial to befall us. We es- 
teem it indeed a hardship to be numbered by our brethren 
among the enemies of that Saviour whom we love* But 
let us remember, that we as well as others need affliction : 
and it is my persuasion and hope that God intends by this 
dispensation to purify our characters and extend our useful- 
ness. The singular prosperity which we have enjoyed, 
has undoubtedly exposed us to peculiar temptations. Per- 
haps in no part of the world is the condition of ministers 
more favoured than ours. Whilst we receive nothing of a 
superstitious homage or a blind submission, we find our- 
selves respected by all classes of society, and, may I not 
say, distinguished by the eminent, the enlightened and the 
good ? We are received with a kind of domestick affection 
into the families of our parishioners. Our sufferings call 
forth their sympathy, and in sickness we enjoy every aid 
which tenderness and liberality can bestow. Our minis- 
trations are attended with a seriousness, which, however 
due to the truth which we deliver, we often feel to be poor- 
ly deserved, by the imperfect manner in which it is dis- 
pensed. In our societies there are no divisions, no jealous- 
ies, no parties to disturb us. Whilst for these singular 
blessings, we should give thanks to the Author of all good, 
we should remember, that human virtue is often unable to 
sustain uninterrupted prosperity ; that a condition so fa- 
voured tends to awaken pride and self-indulgence ; and that 
God, who knows us better than we know ourselves, may see 
that we need reproach and opposition to make us better 



27 

men and better ministers. I can certainly say for myself, 
that the spirit of denunciation in our country, has led me to 
a more serious and habitual study of the scriptures, and to 
a deeper feeling of my responsibility, than I should have 
attained in a more peaceful condition. Let us then resign 
ourselves to God, who in infinite wisdom sees fit to expose 
us to the scourge of evil tongues. Let this trial awaken us 
to new watchfulness, devotion, and fidelity ; and we may 
trust that it will be overruled to the extension of our useful- 
ness, and to the promotion of pure and undefiled religion. 

A third, and a very important suggestion is this : Let us 
hold fast our uprightness. I have said, that the opposition 
to which we are exposed has its advantages ; but whilst it 
preserves us from the temptation of prosperity, it brings 
some temptation of its own, which we cannot too steadfastly 
resist. It will try our integrity. That our churches are 
to be generally shaken by the assault which is made upon 
them, I am far from believing. But some may suffer. It 
is not impossible, that* the efforts which are now employed 
to direct against us the uncharitableness and mistaken zeal 
of the country, and to spread disaffection through the most 
uninstructed and the most easily excited classes of society, 
may produce some effect. We know the fluctuations of 
the human mind. We know that the sincerest christians 
are often unduly influenced by timidity, and may be brought 
to suspect a minister, when he is decried as a heretick, who 
is leading souls to hell. It requires more strength of 
nerves and more independence of mind than all good people 
possess, to withstand this incessant clamour. A storm then 
may be gathering over some of us, and the sufferers may 
be tempted to bend to it. But God forbid, my friend, that 
any of us should give support to the aspersions cast on our 
uprightness, by ever suppressing our convictions, or speak- 
ieg a language foreign to our hearts. Through good report 



and through evil report, let us with simplicity and sincerity 
declare what we believe to be the will of God and the way 
to- Heaven, and thus secure to ourselves that peace of con- 
science which is infinitely better than the smiles of the 
world. Let us never forget, that the most honoured condi- 
tion on earth is that of being sufferers for the sake of right- 
eousness, for adherence to what we deem the cause of God 
and holiness, and let us welcome suffering, if it shall be 
appointed us, as bringing us nearer to our persecuted Lord, 
and his injured apostles. My brother, we profess to count 
man's judgment as a light thing, to esteem this world and 
all which it offers to be vanity. We profess to look up to a 
heavenly inheritance, and to hope that we shall one day 
mingle with angels and just men made perfect. And with 
these sublime hopes, shall we tremble before frail and falli- 
ble fellow creatures, be depressed by difficulties, or shrink 
from the expression of what we deem important and useful 
truth? God forbid. 

I have time to add but one more suggestion. Let us be- 
ware lest opposition and reproach lead any of us into a sec- 
tarian attachment to our peculiar opinions. This is a dan- 
ger to which persons of ardent and irritable temper are pe- 
culiarly exposed. Too many of us are apt to cling to a 
system in proportion as it is assailed, to consider ourselves 
pledged to doctrines which we have openly espoused, to 
rally round them as if our own honour and interest were at 
stake, and to assert them with more and more positiveness, 
as if we were incapable of errour. This is the infirmity of 
our frail nature ; and whilst we condemn it in others, let us 
not allow it in ourselves. Let us be what we profess to be, 
patient inquirers after truth, open to conviction, willing to 
listen to objections, willing to renounce errour, willing to 
believe that we as well as others may have been warped in 
our opinions, by education and situation, and that others 



29 

may have acquired important truths which, through weak- 
ness or prejudice, we may have overlooked. Were We a 
party, anxious to make proselytes, we should do well to be 
positive and overbearing. But we profess to be anxious 
that our fellow christians should inquire for themselves into 
the difficulties of religion, instead of implicitly receiving 
what we have embraced. We profess to believe, that can- 
did and impartial research will guide mankind to a purer 
system of Christianity, than is now to be found in any church 
or country under Heaven. Most earnestly do I hope that 
we shall not be betrayed by any violence of assault into a 
sectarian heat and obstinacy, which will discredit our pro- 
fession, and obstruct this glorious reformation of the church 
of God. 

I have thus, my brother, considered the charges, by 
which we and our brethren have been assailed, and have 
endeavoured to recommend the temper with which we 
should meet reproach and insult. I intended to offer a few 
remarks on some other topicks introduced into the Review : 
but this letter is already extended far beyond the limits 
which I originally prescribed. I cannot, however, pass 
over in silence the charges against Harvard University, 
that venerable institution, which so many excellent men in 
this commonwealth are accustomed to regard with filial affec- 
tion and honour, and to which we are all so much indebted 
for the light of knowledge, and for whatever capacities of 
usefulness to society we may possess. The statement of 
the Reviewer, that the propagation of Unitarianism in that 
University is the object of regular and well concerted exer- 
tion, is altogether false. I aui persuaded that such a plan 
never entered the thoughts of those to whom the department 
of theological instruction is entrusted. The books in which 
the classes are taught, were selected for the very purpose 
of avoiding, as far as possible, the controversies of theolo- 



30 

gians, and the communication of any peculiarities of opin- 
ion to the students. They are, " Grotius on the Truth 
of the Christian Religion," " Paley's Evidences," " But- 
ler's Analogy," and " Griesbach's New Testament." 
The charge of the Reviewer, that the students, instructed as 
they are in these works, by a professor of exemplary puri- 
ty and uprightness, are yet taught to deny Jesus Christ, 
will, I trust, excite the indignation and abhorrence of every 
unperverted mind. 

Had I time, I should feel it my duty to offer some re- 
marks on the general style of the publication ^hich I am 
called to examine. It not only abounds in misrepresenta- 
tion, and breathes an unchristian spirit, but it is written in a 
style which tends to deprave the taste and manners of the 
community. It is suited to give a coarse and vulgar charac- 
ter to the conversation and deportment of those christians 
whom it may influence. It abounds in sneer and insult, and 
bears the marks of a writer better fitted to fill the pages of an 
inflammatory newspaper, than to be the guide of the mild and 
benevolent disciples of Jesus Christ. I trust, however, 
that its style and spirit will do much to counteract its perni- 
cious tendency. I have too much respect for this people 
to believe that wanton assaults on the moral character of 
ministers and private christians will be encouraged and ap- 
proved. I even hope that good will in many cases result 
from this publication. I trust, that those christians who 
have been partially misled by the denouncing spirit of the 
times, will now pause and consider ; that all christians, of 
whatever name, who have any delicacy and tenderness of 
feeling, will learn the true character of that unhallowed zeal 
which is seeking to divide our churches ; and that in this 
way, some important aid will be given to the cause of peace 
and charity. May God, whose glory it is to bring good 
from evil, thus cause " the wrath of man to praise him." 



31 

I think it proper, in conclusion, to observe that I shall 
not feel myself bound to notice any replies which may be 
made to this letter, especially if they appear in the Pano- 
plist. I consider that work as having forfeited all claim on 
the confidence of candid, upright, and honourable men. If 
any remarks on this letter shall appear, written with the 
spirit of a christian, or in the style of a gentleman, I shall 
read them with care, and I hope with impartiality ; and I 
shall readily retract any of my opinions or statements which 
I shall see to be erroneous, if they shall be thought suffi- 
ciently important to demand publick acknowledgment. 

I now commit this humble effort to promote the peace 
and union of the church, and the cause of truth and free 
inquiry, to the blessing of Almighty God. That in wri- 
ting it, I have escaped every unchristian feeling, I dare not 
hope ; and for every departure from the spirit of his gos- 
pel, I implore his forgiveness. If I have fallen into errour, 
I beseech him to discover it to my own mind, and to pre- 
vent its influence on the minds of others. It is an unspeak- 
able consolation that we and our labours are in his hand, 
and that the cause of the gospel is his peculiar care. That 
he may honour us as the instruments of extending the 
knowledge and the spirit of the gospel, is the earnest prayer 
of your friend and brother in Christ, 

W. E. CHANNING. 

Boston, June 20, 1815. 



NOTES. 



Note A, page 5. 

I hate used the phrase or denomination Liberal Christians, 
because it is employed by the.Reviewer to distinguish those whom 
he assails. I have never been inclined to claim this appellation 
for myself or my friends, because as the word liberality expresses 
the noblest qualities of the human mind, freedom from local 
prejudices and narrow feelings, the enlargement of the views and 
affections, — I have thought that the assumption of it would 
savour of that spirit, wMch has attempted to limit the words 
orthodox and evangelical to a particular body of christians. As 
the appellation, however, cannot well be avoided, I will state 
the meaning which I attach to it. 

By a liberal christian I understand one, who is disposed to 
receive as his brethren in Christ, all who in the judgment of 
charity, sincerely profess to receive Jesus Christ as their Lord 
and Master. He rejects all tests or standards of christian faith 
and of christian character, but the word of Jesus Christ and of 
his inspired apostles. He thinks it an act of disloyalty to his 
Master to introduce into the church creeds of fallible men as 
bonds of union, or terms of christian fellowship. He calis him- 
self by no name derived from human leaders, disclaims all exclu- 
sive connexion with any sect or party, professes himself a mem- 
ber of the church universal on earth and in heaven, and cheer- 
fully extends the hand of brotherhood to every man of every 
name who discovers the spirit of Jesus Christ. 

According to this view of liberal christians, they cannot be 
called a party. They are distinguished only by refusing to sepa- 
rate themselves in any form or degree from the great body of 
Christ. They are scattered too through all classes of Christians. 

6 



34 

I have known Trinitarians and Calvinisis, who justly deserve 
the name of liberal, who regard with affection all who appear 
to follow Jesus Christ in temper and life, however they may 
differ on the common points of theological controversy. To this 
class of christians, which is scattered over the earth, and which 
I trust has never been extinct in any age, I profess and desire 
to belong. God send them prosperity. — In this part of the coun- 
try, liberal christians, as they have been above described, are 
generally, though by no means universally, Unitarians in the 
proper sense of that word. It is of this part of them that I 
chiefly speak in this letter. 

I cannot forbear enforcing the sentiments of this note and of 
the letter by a passage from the venerable Baxter, as I find it 
quoted by Grove from the preface to the second part of " Saints' 
Everlasting 'Rest." 

" Two things have set the church on fire, and been the plagues 
of it above one thousand years; — 1st. Enlarging our creed, and 
making more fundamentals than everriod made, 2d. Compos- 
ing, and so imposing, our creeds and confessions in our own 
w r ords and phrases. When men have learned more manners 
and humility than to accuse God's language as too general and 
obscure, as if they could mend it— and have more dread of God 
and compassion on themselves, than to make those to be funda- 
mentals or certainties which God never made so ; and when they 
reduce their confessions, 1st. to their due extent, and 2d. to scrip- 
ture phrases, that dissenters may not scruple subscribing — then, 
and I think never till then, shall the church have peace about doc- 
trinals. It seems to me no heinous Socinian notion which Chil- 
lingworth is blamed for, viz. Let all men believe the Scripture, 
and that only, and endeavour to believe it in the true sense, and 
promise this, and require no more of others, and they shall find 
this not only a better, but the only means to suppress heresy 
and restore unity" 



35 



Note B, page 6, 

I have mentioned the name of Dr. Eckley, because his ophv 
ions on this subject were again and again expressed before me 
with perfect frankness, and are stated with great distinctness in 
his letter to the Rev. Thomas Worcester of Salisbury, from which 
I subjoin an extract. 

" My plan, when I saw you, as I think I intimated, respecting the 
Son of God, was very similar to what your brother* has now adopt- 
ed. The common plan of three self-existent persons forming one 
Essence or infinite Being, and one of these persons being united 
to a man, but not in the least humbling himself or suffering, com- 
pletely leads to and ends in Socinianism ; and though it claims 
the form of orthodoxy, it is a shadow without the substance ; it 
eludes inspection ; and I sometimes say to those who are strenu- 
ous for this doctrine, that they take away my Lord, and I know 
not where they place him." — "The orthodoxy, so called, of Wa- 
terland, is as repugnant to my reason and views of religion, as 
the heterodoxy of Lardner ; and I am at a loss to see that any 
solid satisfaction, for a person who wishes to find salvation 
through the death of the Son op God, can be found in either." — 
" I seek for a plan which exalts the personal character and attri- 
butes of the Son of G od in the highest possible degree. The 
plan which your brother hath chosen does this — The scheme he 
has adopted affords light and comfort to the christian. I have 
long thought so ; and I continue to think I have not been mis 
taken." 

* Rev. Noah Worcester. 



WELLS AND LILLY, 

(of boston) 

HAVE JUST PUBLISHED AND FOR SALE AT NO. 97 COURT STREET, 

An Essay on the Character and Practical Writings of Saint 
Paul, by Hannah More. Two volumes in one, price in extra 
boards $1. 

SERMONS, chiefly on PARTICULAR OCCASIONS, by 
Archibald Alison, LL. B. Prebendary of Sarum, &c. &c. 
price $1, 62 1-2. 

For a high character of these eloquent discourses, see Edinhurgh Review for Sep- 
tember, 1814. 

The Lord of the Isles, by "Walter Scott, Esq. elegantly 
printed. $1. 

WILL BE PUBLISHED IN A FEW DAYS, 

DISCIPLINE, a Novel, by the Author of Self-Control, 
two volumes, 12mo. 



LETTER 



TO THK 



REV. WILLIAM E. CHANNING, 



OJT TEE SUBJECT OP BIS LETTER TO THE 



REV. SAMUEL C. THATCHER, 



RELATING TO THE 



REVIEW IN THE PANOPLIST 



AMERICAN UNITARIANS M. 



BY SAMUEL WORCESTER, D. D. 

PASTOR OF THE TABERNACLE CHURCH, SALEX. 



THIRD EDITION, 



BOSTON : 

PRINTED BY SAMUEL V. ARMSTRONG, 170. 50, COBNHIIX, 

1815. 



REV. AND DEAR SIR, 

I have read your Letter to your Friend and Brother, the 
Rev. Samuel C. Thatcher, with some pleasure and with 
much regret. The causes of the one and of the other will 
in part he laid open in the subsequent remarks, which I 
have thought proper to address in the form of a letter to you. 
I need make no apology: the subject is deeply and extensive- 
ly interesting; and involves considerations of infinite mo- 
ment to the general cause, to which you and I profess to be 
sacredly devoted. Nor shall I make any professions of can- 
dour, or charity: for I have been taught by the best of books, 
that "charity vaunteth not itself, doth not behave itself un- 
seemly;" from other books I have learned, that high profes- 
sions too often serve to cover a temper very different from 
that which "is not easily provoked," but "sufFereth long and 
is kind;" and I am thoroughly convinced, that persons who 
have the greatest confidence in their good dispositions, do not 
always know "what manner of spirit they are of." 

I wish it to be understood, distinctly, that I have no con- 
nexion, or privity in this business, with the writer of the 
Review, which is the subject of your strictures. I write not 
in his behalf; but in behalf of the general interests of truth, 
and justice, and mercy. He probably will answer for him- 
self; and to him I shall leave the particular vindication of 
himself, his statements and conclusions, his spirit and style: 
a labour which does not belong to me, and which I should 
be less disinclined to undertake, were the Review in all res- 
pects exactly such as I could wish it to have been. It might 
perhaps have been better, had the Reviewer been less intent 
on exciting those whose cause he espouses, and consulted 
more the conviction and benefit of those against whom his 
animadversions are directed. 

With what justice, and to what extent, a similar remark 
might be applied to your Letter, you, my dear Sir, and your 
friends will consider. It cannot, however, but be regretted, 



that you should have found it necessary to sit down to write, 
while "breathing an atmosphere to which you were not accus- 
tomed;" while perturbed with the feelings which, in spite of 
all your efforts to restrain them, are so copiously infused in- 
to the entire body of your Letter. But all reasonable allow- 
ance should be made for the urgency of the case. Had you 
waited till the excitement had subsided, your opportunity for 
preventing or counteracting the impressions which the Re- 
view was likely to make, might have been lost. I frankly 
confess, that a similar reason has induced me to avail myself 
of the earliest remission of other pressing calls of duty, for 
bestowing some attention on your subject. Could you, how- 
ever, have waited till the cool of the day, though probably 
your Letter would have been less animated, and less adapted 
to a particular purpose, it would not, I am persuaded, have 
displayed less of the meekness of wisdom, or been less correct 
in its representations. 

You bring, dear Sir, against the Reviewer an accusation of 
"falsehood:" an accusation certainly of no trivial kind, and 
never to be lightly preferred against any one. "The Re- 
"view," you say, "asserts, 1. That the ministers of this town 
"[Bost.n] and its vicinity and the great body of liberal 
"christians are Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense of the 
"word. 2. That these ministers and liberal christians are 
"guilty of hypocritical concealment of their sentiments, and 
"behave in a base, cowardly and hypocritical manner." In 
these two assertions, especially in the first of them, it should 
seem, lies the alleged falsehood of the Reviewer. These 
also make the first two heads of your Letter. The 3d is this: 
"Christians are called to come out and separate themselves 
"from these ministers and the liberal body of christians, and 
"to withhold from them christian communion." Under these 
three heads, in their order, the remarks, which I have to sub- 
mit to your consideration, will chiefly be arranged. 

I. Docs the Reviewer then assert, "That the ministers of 
Boston and the vicinity, and the great body of liberal 
christians, are Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense of the 
word?" This you affirm; and to support the affirmation, you 
quote from the Review the following passages. "P. 267, 



" <We feel entirely warranted to say, that the predominant 
" 'religion of the liberal party is decidedly Unitarian^ in Mr. 
" 'Belsham's sense of the word.' P. 254, "We shall feel our- 
" 'selves warranted hereafter, to speak of the fact as certain, 
" 'that Unitarianism," meaning Mr. Belsham's, <is the pre- 
« 'dominant religion among the ministers and churches of 
f* ♦Boston.' P. 271, 'The liberal party mutilate the New 
i* 'Testament, reject nearly all the fundamental doctrines of 
ffi 'the gospel, and degrade the Saviour to the condition of a 
" 'fallible, peccable, and ignorant man.' " These passages I 
shall briefly consider; but not in the order in which you 
have chosen to arrange them: for I am not satisfied that it 
was quite right, to place the passage, quoted from the 267th 
page, in which there is no mention of Boston, before the 
one, quoted from the 254th page, and which refers to Boston 
directly. By this arrangement, with the help of a clause 
which you have thought proper to insert in the second pas- 
sage, you have given to the three passages an aspect which, 
I believe you will readily perceive does not belong to them. 
I think it more fair to consider the passages in the order in 
which they stand in the Review, and to refer them severally 
to their proper connexions. 

The first passage then is this; "We shall feel ourselves 
warranted hereafter, to speak of the fact as certain, thai 
Unitarianism is the predominant religion among the minis- 
ters and churches in Boston." Is this, Sir, an assertion, 
"That the ministers of Boston and the vicinity, and the 
great body of liberal christians, are Unitarians, in Mr. Bel- 
sham's sense of the word?" You will please to observe, thai 
no mention is here made of "the vicinity," or of "the great 
body of liberal christians." The remark is limited to Bos- 
ton. Further, it is not said that "the ministers," i. e. all 
the ministers, even of Boston, are Unitarians. The word 
"predominant" is evidently restrictive, and implies, that 
they were not all intended to be included. Further still, it 
is not said that any of the ministers of Boston are Unitari- 
ans, "in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word." 

Docs the connexion, then, warrant the broad construction. 
which you have given to the passage? The Reviewer pre- 



Bents a letter, written by Dr. Freeman of Boston* to Mr. 
Lindsey of London, in which, after mentioning the "avidity" 
with which the "Unitarian Tracts," received by him from 
Mr. Lindsey, were extensively read, and the "impression 
which they could not fail to make upon the minds of many," 
Dr. Freeman says, "From these and other causes the Uni- 
tarian doctrine appears to be still upon the increase." "It 
"flourishes chiefly in New England; but not much in Con- 
necticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, or the western 
"counties of Massachusetts. A few seeds have been sown in 
"Vermont, and an abundant harvest has been produced in 
"the vicinity of Boston, and in the counties directly south of 
"it." Immediately in this connexion, the Reviewer says, 
"How far the sentiments in question have spread in Boston, 
"has been often a subject of inquiry, and not unfrequently of 
"debate. Mr, Belsham will inform us. <If, says he, I am 
" <not greatly misinformed, divine worship, in many of the 
" tprmripal churches in Boston, is carried on upon principles 
" ^strictly, if not avowedly Unitarian.' " The Reviewer 
then adds, "If any thing be lacking in Mr. Belsham's ac- 
"count, it is supplied in a letter to him, by William Wells, 
"Esq. of Boston, a gentleman who, from his extensive ac- 
quaintance with books and men, and his distinguished zeal 
"in the cause of Unitarianism, may well be supposed to give 
"as exact a picture as any man living could draw." In tliis 
letter, which the Reviewer gives at large, Mr. Wells says, 
"Most of our Boston clergy and respectable laymen (of whom 
"we have many enlightened theologians) are Unitarians." — "1 
"may safely say, the general habit of thinking and speaking 
"upon this question, in Boston, is Unitarian." Upon this 
the Reviewer remarks, "Such is the testimony in the case 
-»imder consideration;" (viz. "How far the sentiments in 
"question have spread in Boston:) and we presume that no 
••man in his senses will hesitate for a moment to give implicit 
"credit to such witnesses." Here comes the passage in ques- 
tion: "We shall feel ourselves warranted hereafter to speak 
"of the fact as certain, that Unitarianism is the predominant 
••religion among the ministers and churches of Boston." 
Now, dear Sir, you will permit me to ask again, and to 



ask very seriously, does the connexion warrant the broad 
construction which you have given to this passage? A con- 
struction which the terms of the passage, by themselves, cer- 
tainly do not warrant; but upon which you have grounded 
the heavy accusation of falsehood. Is not the inquiry, in this 
connexion, limited expressly to Boston, to the exclusion most 
clearly of "its vicinity," and of "the great body of liberal 
"christians" elsewhere? Does not the Reviewer come to the 
conclusion, expressed in the debated passage, explicitly upon 
the ground of the adduced testimony of Mr. Belsham and 
Mr. Wells, in addition to that of Dr. Freeman? And docs he 
not use the name Unitarian as unrestrictedly, as it is used 
by Mr. Wells himself, who must very well have known how 
Mr. Belsham would be likely to understand him? Upon what 
principles, then, of fairness or of truth, could we be justified 
in alleging, that the Review here "asserts, that the minis- 
ters of Boston and its vicinity, and the great body of lib- 
"eral christians, are Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense of 
"the word." 

Before I dismiss this point, I must be permitted to ask 
further — Is not the Reviewer fairly borne out, in the de- 
claration which he does make, respecting Boston, by the 
testimony upon which the declaration is made? Had he not 
a right to consider Dr. Freeman, Mr. Belsham and Mr- 
Wells, good authority in the case? Does he say more than 
what their testimony, particularly that of Mr. Wells, evi- 
dently warrants? Why then the heated indignation against 
him, while none is expressed against them? Why the strenu- 
ous endeavour to inflame and direct the resentments of the 
ministers and people of Boston against him, while they are 
treated with such exemplary forbearance? — Nay, rather, 
what occasion for any indignation, or resentment, either 
against him or them? Do you not, Sir, yourself mean to con- 
cede as much respecting Boston, as he asserts. — when you say, 
"The word Unitarianism, as denoting opposition to Trinita- 
rianism, undoubtedly expresses the character of a "considera- 
ble part of the ministers of this town and its vicinity?" I dare 
not, indeed, affirm that you do; especially since you think 
it proper to add in the same sentence, — "and the common* 



wealth. " I have great satisfaction in the confidence, that 
Unitarianism is not the "predominant religion" among the 
ministers and churches of this commonwealth, and in the 
hope in God that it never will be. I do suppose, however, 
that you have great satisfaction also in the confidence, that 
it «is the predominant religion among the ministers and 
churches of Boston." But if so, what can be the reason 
that the true statement of the fact should produce such an 
unusual intensity of heat in your mind? 

The next passage to be considered is this: "We feel en- 
tirely warranted to say, that the predominant religion of 
"the liberal party is decidedly Unitarian, in Mr. Belsham's 
"sense of the word." Does this "assert that the ministers 
"of Boston and its vicinity, and the great body of liberal 
"christians, are" of this character? Certainly, Sir, you will 
not hesitate to admit that, by itself, it does not. Does it then, 
when taken in connexion with the former passage? The former 
passage instead of helping to extend the sense of this, evidently 
serves to restrict it: for that passage plainly imports, that the 
ministers and churches of Boston are not all Unitarian, even 
in the general sense of the word. In each of these passa- 
ges the restrictive word "predominant," is usedj and in the 
latter passage, to give it the greater force of restriction, it 
is printed in Italicks. The utmost then, that can be fairly 
made out from the two passages together, of assertion in re- 
gard to the ministers and churches of Boston, is, that the 
majority of them are Unitarian, and that the greater part of 
the Unitarian majority hold with Mr. Belsham. All this 
might be true, and yet not half of those ministers and 
churches be Unitarians of this character. Yet you, my dear 
Sir, have emphatically represented that, in these passages, 
"the Review asserts, that the ministers of Boston, with the 
ministers of the vicinity, and the great body of liberal chris- 
tians, are Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense of the wordj" 
and, under cover of this representation, have, in your haste, 
most earnestly accused the Reviewer of falsehood. 

I have stated the utmost that can fairly be made out towards 
what you allege. But the passage under consideration rdmits 
of an interpretation, still less favourable to your allegation. 



It may mean a "predominance*" not in point of numbers* but 
in point of influence: and from the connexion this should seem 
to be its real meaning. After stating, "We feel entirely war- 
ranted to say, that the predominant religion of the liberal 
party is decidedly Unitarian, in Mr. Belshams's sense of the 
word," the Reviewer proceeds to shew the grounds upon 
which this declaration is made. He adduces the Monthly 
Anthology, the General Repository, and the Improved Ver- 
sion of the New Testament; publications which, as he sup- 
poses, were put forth and patronized by "the most prominent 
clergymen and laymen of the liberal party," — men "who 
have the entire controul of the college," And, after saying 
what he judged requisite, respecting the Unitarianism of these 
publications, he concludes thus: "It appears, then, that the 
"college and nearly all the influence of the liberal party 
"through the medium of the press are in favour of Unitarian- 
"ism. If individuals dislike Mr. Belsham as a leader; if they 
"are not willing to be classed among his followers; let them 
"declare their own opinions openly." Here then, we have 
evidently an explanation of what the Reviewer meant, by 
"Unitarianism, in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word, being the 
predominant religion of the liberal party." that it is predov, %• 
nant in point of "influence," having "the most prominent 
characters" for its supporters and abettors. This, as you 
will readily acknowledge, might be true, though not one half, 
not one quarter of "the great body of liberal Christians" 
were Unitarians in this sense. And, Sir, that it is not actu- 
ally true, nothing which you have advanced goes to shew. 

What, however, the real truth in the case is, I will not take 
upon me to say: but I must say, that I do not see that the 
Reviewer may not have been perfectly honest in the opinion 
which he has expressed; perfectly honest in declaring that he 
"feels himself entirely warranted to say" what he does say. 
If his opinion is a mistaken one, yet an "unperverted mind" 
will admit, that the grounds on which it was formed have at 
least the appearance of some solidity; and it would require, it 
should seem no uncommon share of "tlie meekness of wisdom," 
no extraordinary effort of that "charity which hv peth all 
things." to refrain from charging him with falsehood. 



10 

One other passage, under this head, remains to be consid- 
ered: "The liberal party mutilate the New Testament, reject 
nearly all the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, and de- 
grade the Saviour to the condition of a fallible, peccable, 
and ignorant man." This is the last of the three passages 
which you have cited to shew that the "Review asserts, that 
the ministers of Boston and the vicinity, and the great body 
of liberal christians, are Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense 
of the word," and upon which you ground your principal 
accusation of falsehood. But is it here asserted, that all the 
individuals of the liberal party actually do the things, and all 
of them, which the party is said to do? Is this a fair inter* 
pretation of the passage? Or if it admits of this, does it fairly 
admit of no other? 

The apostles, Sir, as you very well know, repeatedly 
charge the Jewish rulers and people, generally* even "the 
great body" of the nation, with having, "crucified and slain 
the Lord of life and glory." Yet, as you also know, but a 
very small part of that great body actually imbrued their 
hands in his blood. But some of them did; and of the rest, 
some more, and others less directly, consented to the deed. 
Hence they were generally involved in the guilt, and brought 
under the charge; and upon the great body, eventually, 
"wrath came to the uttermost." Such was the judgment of 
the apostles; and such the judgment of Him, whose throne is 
established in righteousness. — And, Sir, if among the liberal 
party, the things charged by the Reviewer are done; if some 
of the party do actually "mutilate the New Testament, reject 
nearly all the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, and de- 
grade the Saviour to the condition of a fallible, peccable, and 
ignorant man," — and of the rest, some more, and others less 
directly, consent to all this; if, as a party, or as individuals 
of the party, they bear no decided testimony against these 
deeds, and do nothing effectually to secure, or to purge them- 
selves from the guilt of them; then, is it not true, and right, 
and proper to say of the party generally, that they do these 
tilings? and will they not generally, with all who adhere to 
them, beheld to answer for them at the bar of the righteous 
Judge? 



11 

But are not these things done: — I tremble, my dear Sir? 
while I put this question to your conscience: — tremble, not 
because I feel that I am doing wrong; but because I consider 
it a question of infinite solemnity. — It surely will not be de- 
nied, that "the New Testament is mutilated;" — it will not 
be denied, that "the Saviour is degraded to the condition of 
a fallible, peccable, and ignorant man;"— nor should it any 
more be denied, that "nearly all the fundamental doctrines of 
the Gospel are rejected." I do believe you will yourself 
admit, that nearly all the doctrines are rejected, which by the 
venerable founders of the New England churches were held 
as fundamental; — which the great body of the Protestant 
churches, since the Reformation, have held as fundamental. 

How great a proportion of the liberal party actually do all 
this, and to how great an extent the rest of them consent to 
it, I would be devoutly thankful, that I am not particularly 
concerned to determine. But I must seriously ask, whether, 
from the representations made in your Letter, were there no 
other means of judging in the case, there would not be most 
fearful reason to apprehend, that you and your liberal breth- 
ren generally have done but very little, to secure yourselves 
from the general charge, or, I must add, to purge yourselves 
from the general guilt? — It grieves me, dear Sir, to state, that 
in your Letter, you tell us, in so many words, that "to believe 
with Mr. Belsham is no crime:" — by which I understand, 
no sin, — no offence against God — against Christ — against 
the Gospel — against the cause and kingdom of truth and 
holiness. — No sin — no offence, to hold Christ to have been 
no more than "a fallible, peccable, and ignorant man;" — to 
discard those parts of the New Testament which assert his 
pre-existence, his miraculous conception, his divinity, and his 
atonement, as either spurious, erroneous, or extravagantly 
hyperbolical; — to deny that his death was an expiatory sacri- 
fice for sin, that "we owe him any gratitude for the benefits 
which we are now receiving," that "we have any reason to 
hope for his future interposition;" — to (k-.iy the inspiration of 
the Scriptures generally, and reject all the fundamental, all 
the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel!— You are also most stu- 
diously careful, most exquisitely tender, lest any "state- 



12 

ment you make should be considered, as casting the least 
reproach on those amongst us, who believe in the simple hu- 
manity of Jesus Christ;" and, of course, agree with Mr. Bel- 
sham, if not in all, yet certainly in the most material articles 
of his creed. — Most studiously careful, most exquisitely ten- 
der, lest you should wound their feelings, abridge their influ- 
ence, or hinder their success in propagating their sentiments! 
And from other parts of your Letter, it would seem that such 
has been the uniform feeling, and comformable to it the uni- 
form practice, not only of yourself, but of your liberal breth- 
ren in general. 

Now, Sir, if such is the real fact, how ever small a propor- 
tion of the liberal party those may be, who actually do the 
things in question; yet is it not perfectly correct to say, gen- 
erally, that the liberal party do them. And if so, where is 
the foundation for the serious charge of falsehood, so vehe- 
mently urged against the Reviewer? 

You are pleased to say, (p. 7.) "The conduct of the Re- 
viewer, in collecting all the opinions of that gentleman," 
Mr. Belsham, "not only on the Trinity, but on every other 
"theological subject, in giving the whole collection the name 
"of Unitarianism, and in exhibiting this to the w orld as the 
"creed of liberal christians in this region, is perhaps as 
"criminal an instance of unfairness, as is to be found in the 
"records of theological controversy." Upon this permit me 
to ask, — Did you overlook that Mr. Belsham exhibits the 
opinions, thus collected, not as peculiarly his own, but ex- 
pressly as the sentiments of the Unitarians generally? Have 
the goodness to observe his phraseology: "The Unitarians 
generally believe," &c. "The Unitarians maintain," &c. 
"The Unitarians disavow," &e. Was it not right for the 
Review cr to consider Mr. Belsham, at present the head of 
the party certainly in England, as good an authority for de- 
termining what Unitarianism is, in the nineteenth century, as 
"Dr. Mosheim" or "Miss Adams?" and right also to give 
the people some distinct information on this subject? Is not 
the fact well known to you, that Unitarianism is a "name," 
not opprobriously given to that class of professed christians 
by their opponents, but eagerly claimed, and strenuously as- 



13 

serted by themselves? Are you not also perfectly aware, 
that after the denial of the essential divinity and the proper 
atonement of Christ, the descent to the lowest degree of Uni- 
tarianism is extremely easy, and often most rapid? That 
among those, who reject these primary doctrines, a peculiar 
brotherhood is at once established? And that any differences 
of sentiment, which may exist among them, are considered by 
themselves, from the highest to the lowest, as comparatively 
unimportant, — and are so considered also by their oppo- 
nents, the Trinitarians, who regard the denial of these doc- 
trines as subversive of the very foundations of the gospel? 
In what then consists the extreme criminality, with which 
the Reviewer is so warmly charged? 

To conclude this head. You have accused the Reviewer 
of falsehood, in "asserting, That the ministers of Boston 
and its vicinity, and the great body of liberal christians, are 
Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word." I trust it 
has been made clear, that this accusation is unfounded: that 
he does not make the assertion which you allege that he 
makes; and that in what he does assert, in the passages cit- 
ed by you, he is in part justified by your own concession, 
and in the rest borne out by the testimony of liberal gentle- 
men, and by principles of fair interpretation, — I frankly 
confess that I did regret, when I first read the Review, and 
I do still regret, that he had not expressed himself with 
more studious care, and more circumspect qualification. But 
for the heavy accusation, which you have preferred against 
him, and for the uncommon heat witli which it is urged, I 
am utterly incapable of discerning any solid reason. "A 
man who is governed by christian principles, will slowly 
and reluctantly become the accuser of his brethren." This 
sentiment, Sir, I quote from you with most hearty approba- 
tion. Near it, however, is a passage, which I quote with no 
common sensation of pain. "That he," the Reviewer, 
"intended to deceive I am unwilling to assert; but the most 
"charitable construction which his conduct will admit is, 
"that his passions and party spirit have criminally blinded 
"him, and hurried him into an act, which could have been 
"authorized only by the strongest evidence, and the inostim- 



14 

•partial inquiry. The time may come, when he will view 
♦♦this transaction with other eyes; when the rage of party 
••'will have subsided,* when the obligation of a fair and equita- 
"ble temper will appear at least as solemn as the obligation 
"of building up a sect; when misrepresentation, intended to 
♦•injure, and originating, if not in malignity, yet in precipi- 
tancy and passion, will be felt to be a crime of no common 
"aggravation.*' — God in mercy preserve me from the desire 
of applying this passage. But, my dear Sir, I must be per- 
mitted to intreat you, at some favoured moment, when pas- 
sion is hushed, when conscience is awake, when- God and 
eternal things are in view, very seriously to consider, whether 
it might be applied with greater justice to the writer of the 
Panoplist Review, than to the writer of the Letter to the 
Rev. Mr. Thatcher. 

II. In the second place you allege, that "the Review as- 
"serts, that the ministers of Boston and the vicinity, and the 
"most considerable members of the liberal party, 'operate in 
" 'secret, intrust only the initiated with their measures; are 
" 'guilty of hypocritical concealment of their sentiments; 
" 'behave in a base and hypocritical manner, compared with 
" 'which Mr. Belsham's conduct, rotten as he is in doctrine 
" 'to the very core, is purity itself.' — Such, you are pleased to 
add, "is the decent language scattered through this Review."' 
And in a note, at the bottom of the page, you throw together 
a number of severed phrases, selected from various parts 
and connexions of the Review, and represent them all as 
having been applied, by the Reviewer, directly to yourself 
and your clerical brethren generally of Boston and the vicin- 
ity, together with the most considerable members of the lib- 
eral pRrty at large. 

You are perfectly aware, Sir, how easy a thing it is to 
select from any book detached sentences and members of 
sentences, and so to arrange them as to give them a very 
different aspect and bearing, from what they have in their 
proper connexions. A more striking example of this kind 
I have seldom if ever witnessed, than the one which you have 
afforded in the instance now before us. Of all the quotations 
which you have made from the Review, as the basis of your 



15 

accusation under this second head, I think I may safely af- 
firm, there is not one sentence, or scrap of a sentence, which 
appears in your Letter, with the same aspect and hearing as 
in the Review. When I first read them in your Letter, I 
felt, I confess, no small degree of excitement in regard to the 
Reviewer; and no little surprise that I could have read the 
Review without a similar excitement. But not less was my 
surprise, when, on turning to the Review, I perceived how 
very differently they there, in their proper connexions, ap- 
peared. My limits will permit me to present but a few of 
them here. 

Speaking of the Stone Chapel, the Reviewer remarks, 
"We must say that the conduct of this society and their min- 
ister, in coming out openly and avowing their sentiments to 
the world, is vastly preferable to a hypocritical concealment of 
them." The words in Italics are those which you quote, as 
being applied by the Reviewer to "the ministers of Boston," 
&c. but no such application of them is made by him. — Of a 
remarkable letter, written by a clergyman in this country to 
his friend in England, and published by Mr. Belsham, the 
Reviewer says, "the object of Mr. Belsham in publishing 
it was, to chastise the Boston clergy for their cowardice in 
concealing their religious opinions." This expresses what the 
Reviewer supposed to be Mr. Belsham's opinion of the Bos- 
ton clergy: and I presume, Sir, you will admit that he was 
warranted by the documents before him, in believing that 
such was Mr. Belsham's opinion, and such his design in 
publishing the letter. "The idea that a minister believes the 
truths of the gospel to be of infinite importance, and still 
conceals them, is incompatible with either fidelity or integrity." 
Here the Reviewer expresses a general sentiment, without 
applying it; a sentiment which you, Sir, I doubt not, will 
readily acknowledge to be just. 

My principal reason for selecting these passages, rather 
than others partly quoted by you, is, that they could be pre- 
sented in their proper connexions and aspects in fewer words. 
These, however, will be admitted, I trust, as a pretty fair 
sample of the whole. 



16 

After making such quotations of detached sentences and 
'scraps of sentences, as you thought proper, to shew that the 
Reviewer had charged you and your liheral brethren with a 
"hypocritical concealment of your sentiments," you proceed 
to notice the proofs upon which he rests this charge. These, 
as you state, are "a letter from Dr. Freeman, and the letter 
of Mr. Wells to Mr. Belsham." These letters you very 
dexterously despatch; excepting that you quote from that of 
Mr. Wells a particular passage, for the purpose of shewing 
"the method," as you say, "in which it is distorted by the 
Reviewer." This letter the Reviewer gives entire, and I 
believe correctly; hut afterwards he does quote the passage 
in question with some variation. The quotation however is 
made, not, as you represent, for the purpose of supporting the 
charge of hypocritical concealment, nor in any connexion 
with this topiek; but most plainly for the purpose of making 
out a list of epithetical and encomiastic k descriptions, given 
by Mr. Wells of gentlemen of the liberal party; and the pas- 
sage is so shaped, as to be the more conveniently arranged 
in the list. Tins alters the case materially. The Reviewer 
does not bring forward a passage in a "distorted" form, for 
the purpose of proving a charge of hypocritical concealment. 
But you have accused him of doing this; and to give the accu- 
sation the deeper impression, you utter yourself in the follow- 
ing remarkable terms: "An unperverted mind turns with sor- 
"row and disgust from such uncharitable and disingenuous 
"dealing; and why all this labour to distort what is so plain? 
"the object is, to fix the character of knaves and hypocrites 
"on a large class of christians and christian ministers. I 
"might here be permitted to dip my pen in gall; but I do not 
"write for those whose moral feeling is so dull, as to need 
"indignant comment on practices like these." — And certainly, 
Sir, this passage of yours needs no "comment" of mine. I 
can only deplore and deprecate the state of mind from which 
only it could have proceeded. 

I mean not, dear Sir, to deny that the Review does charge 
ministers, and perhaps others, of the party called liberal, with 
want of openness and clearness in avowing and explaining 
tiieir sentiments; nay, with designed "concealment" and cul 



\7 

pable disguise. Nor will I dissemble that I have felt no lit 
tie regret, that its language on this subject had not been in a 
style of less repulsive freedom and apparent asperity. I am 
fully aware that this is tender ground,* and I feel most deeply 
the difficulty and the delicacy of the subject. 

It does, however, appear to me very clear, that Dr* Free- 
man, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Belsham did. suppose, and that in 
the documents on which the Reviewer principally relies as his 
vouchers.* they do represent, that liberal ministers,, and other 
liberal gentlemen have judged it proper, not to make ordina- 
rily a free and full disclosure of their sentiments: that they 
have in fact thought it expedient to temporize. Whether, in 
this opinion of you and your brethren, those gentlemen are 
correct or not, you must have been apprised, that the opin- 
ion is not peculiar to them, hut very extensively prevalent: 
prevalent, not among those only, whom you would consider 
your adversaries, but also among your friends. Hundreds 
and hundreds of times have I heard it uttered from various 
quarters, and with various expressions of approbation and 
disapprobation,' and never, in any debafe or conversation, as 
I recollect, have I heard the truth of it denied, or called in 
question. It seems indeed to have been received as an estab- 
lished, uncontested fact, that ministers of the liberal class 
were not accustomed to be unreserved and explicit in the 
public avowal and declaration of their sentiments. I con - 
fess to you, Sir, that I had so received it; nor did I ever im- 
agine that in so receiving it, there was any thing injurious or 
uncharitable: for I did suppose that you and your liberal 
brethren held it as a maxim, founded upon reasons satisfac- 
tory to your own minds, that a degree of reserve and con- 
cealment, greater or less according to circumstances, was 
prudent, and justifiable, and praiseworthy. In this supposi- 
tion I have been from time to time strengthened, by conversa- 
tions with respectable individuals of the class, and not a little 
confirmed by what I have occasionally heard from the pulpit. I 
bave now in very fresh remembrance some sentiments to this 
effect, delivered in a sermon which I heard at an ordination 
in Boston a few months ago; and in which the preacher very 
distinctly, and with considerable amplification, held forth 



18 

that, though in some places it might he well, and "contribute 
"to the faith and virtue of the people," for a minister openly 
and plainly to declare his sentiments, yet in other places it 
would not be prudent or proper: and in regard to this, the 
gentleman then ordained was affectionately and earnestly 
advised to regulate himself, according to the habits of think- 
ing and feeling, the prejudices or freedom from prejudice, 
which he should find to prevail among his people. 

Judge then, Sir, of my surprise, when I read, in your Let- 
ter, what I understood to be intended as an absolute denial, 
that any such reserve or concealment had been practised. 
After some reflection^ however, I discerned, or thought I dis- 
cerned, very clearly, the foundation of the apparent contra- 
diction. The primary question befween you and your oppo- 
nents on tliis subject is, What is to be understood by a min- 
ister being open, clear, and faithful in the avowal and decla- 
ration of his sentiments? Upon this question there is evi- 
dently, between yoti and them, a real and material difference 
of opinion; and this difference is very manifestly the founda- 
tion of the apparent contradiction between you and them on 
the question, whether you are open, clear, and faithful, or 
concealed, indistinct, and unfaithful. 

You are perfectly aware, that the ministers, called ortho- 
dox, arc accustomed generally to preach out their sentiments 
without reserve, perhaps sometimes without prudence. They 
do not shun to declare unto the people all the counsel of God, 
as they understand it. They do not avoid preaching any 
doctrine which they find to be revealed in the word of God,, 
either because that doctrine is mysterious, or because it is 
denied by some and doubted by others; but the very circum- 
stance of its being denied or doubted, is with them a reason 
why they should be the more particular, and the more earnest, 
in shewing its truth, in obviating the objections against it, 
and in so instructing their hearers upon it, as to promote the 
increase of their knowledge and the establishment of their 
faith. These ministers, therefore, are accustomed to use 
great plainness of speech, endeavouring to make themselves 
well understood upon every subject: to let it be distinctly 
known what they believe concerning mankind, their fallen 



19 

state, their native depravity and practical sinfulness, their 
guilt and their condemnation; concerning Jesus Christ, hie 
person, his offices, his atonement, and the nature and the 
way of the great salvation by him; concerning* the Holy 
Spirit, his personal divinity, his official power and grace, and 
the nature and importance of his work in renewing, sanctify- 
ing, and sealing the heirs of salvation; and concerning the 
Gospel generally, its infinite importance as "the wisdom of 
God and the power of God" for the recovery of lost mankind, 
its doctrines, its precepts, and its institutions. — Accordingly 
these ministers are understood; and in general their people 
and others are left in no doubt as to what their sentiments 
are. — This, Sir, is what they understand by ministers being 
open, and clear, and faithful in the avowal and declaration of 
their sentiments. 

It is otherwise, however, with you and your liberal breth- 
ren, as appeal's most clearly from your Letter. 

In repelling the charges of the Panoplist Reviewer, you 
first make what would seem to be a Confession of Faith; and 
then proceed to shew the manner in which you and your 
brethren perform your ministry. — To your friend Mr. 
Thatcher you say, p, 7, "We both agreed that a majority 
"of our brethren believe that Jesus Christ is more than 
"man, that he existed before the world, that he literally 
"came from heaven to save our race, that he sustains other 
"offices than those of a teacher and witness to the truth, and 
"that he still acts for our benefit, and is our intercessor with 
"the Father. This we agreed to be the prevalent sentiment 
"of our brethren." You then mention "another class of liber- 
"al christians, who, whilst they reject the distinction of three 
"persons in God, are yet unable to pass a definite judg- 
"ment on the various systems, which prevail, as to the na- 
ture and rank of Jesus Christ;" and "another class" still, 
-who believe the simple humanity of Jesus Christ/' — "As 
"to myself," you say, p. 12, "I have ever been inclined to 
"cherish the most exalted views of Jesus Christ, which are 
"consistent with the supremacy of the Father; and I have 
"felt it my duty to depart from Mr. Belsham, in perhaps 
"every sentiment which is peculiar to him on. this subject." 



Then, including yourself with your brethren of the three class- 
es, you say, p. 13, "We are accustomed to speak of the Father 
"as God, and of Jesus Christ as his Son, as a distinct being 
"from him, as dependent on him, subordinate to him, and de- 
priving all from him." 

Such is your Confession of Faith; and for this Confession 
I, dear Sir, for one, most sincerely thank you; and hundreds 
and thousands of christians, I am persuaded, will thank yoiu 
Jt will serve to relieve us of much of the uncertainty, and 
much of the embarrassment, which, until now, we have felt 
in relation to you and your liberal brethren. — One great 
point is clear:— You hold Jesus Christ as "a being" entire- 
ly "distinct from 0011," and, like all other creatures, entire- 
ly "dependent. ,, — Of course, you will, doubtless, not hesitate 
to acknowledge what I have certainly very great sorrow in 
stating, that the doctrines of atonement by his death, and jus- 
tification through faith in Ms blood, as held by orthodox 
christians in all ages of the church, — together with all the 
truths and sentiments — all the powerful motives to repen- 
tance, faith, and holiness, depending on those cardinal doc- 
trines, at once fall to the ground before you! Thus much is 
plain; thus far the matter is settled in regard to yourself 
and in regard also to your liberal brethren, in so far as you 
were authorised to speak for them. To what extent you 
were thus authorised, I know not; but would devoutly hope, 
not to the extent which your manner of speaking would seem 
to import. Yes, Sir, most devoutly would I hope, that there 
are same among those whom you would wisji, to include in 
your liberal party, who will revolt from your statement; who 
will protest against being numbered with you; who will yet 
awake from the enchantment, more fatal than that of Arini- 
da, under the power of which they have too long been held. 

Still, however, I find in the; terms of your creed, a great 
want of clearness and precision; great indistinctness and 
ambiguity. What are we to understand by "Jesus Chris's 
being more than man?"— by his "literally coming from heav- 
en to save our ra( e?" What is he more than man, and how 
does he save? What "other offices docs he sustain than those 
of a teacher and witness to the truth?" Upon these, and ot'a ■ 



%r points comprised in your statement of the sentiments ot 
the liberal party in general, you leave us in utter uncertain- 
ty. In your statement of your own sentiments, your ambi- 
guity is not less remarkable. Were it not for what you say 
in another place, we should not know what you mean by 
"the supremacy' of the Father:" whether a supremacy in 
office, such as Trinitarians admit; or a supremacy in nature, 
such as that of the infinite, independent Creator in relation 
to his finite, "dependent" creatures. "I have felt it my duty," 
you say, "to depart from Mr. Bclsham, in perhaps every 
sentiment peculiar to him on this subject." Might not Dr. 
Priestley, with perfect truth, have said this? Is there a Uni- 
tarian in the world, even the closest follower of'Mr. Belsham, 
who might not say the same? Undoubtedly there is no man 
living, who does not "depart from Mr. Bclsham, in every 
sentiment which is peculiar to him." But what are the sen- 
timents peculiar to Mr. Belsham? None of those certainly 
which are exhibited in his Unitarian creed, 

Now, dear Sir, if such ambiguity, such want' of distinct- 
ness and clearness, such apparent (I mean not to say dis- 
honest) "concealment," is found in this Confession of your 
Faith; a confession, majie on an occasion so urgent, when 
you seem to have felt yourself called upon for a publick and 
explicit declaration of your sentiments; would it not be rea- 
sonable to conclude, that on ordinary occasions you are cer- 
tainly not less reserved, indistinct, and ambiguous: nay, that 
you have acquired a habit of expressing yourself on the doc- 
trinal subjects of religion, in a manner not to be clearly 
understood. That such is the real fact, is manifest from the 
representation which you give of the manner, in which you 
and your liberal brethren perform your ministry. 

The sum of this representation, which you have spread 
oyer several pages, is this: That you and your brethren stu- 
diously refrain from encountering the opinions of any of the 
various denominations of christians, who differ from you; 
and are accustomed "to urge perpetually those truths and 
precepts," which to be sure you call "great," "about which 
there is little contention." But what arc those great truths 
and precepts, about which there is little contention, and which 



m 

you perpetually urge? Certainly not any of the primary, not 
any of the peculiar doctrines or institutions of the gospel: for 
not one of these can be named, about which there has not always 
been, about which there is not still, great contention. The doc- 
trines concerning the Saviour's person and character, his 
priesthood and atonement, his offices and work; — the doctrines 
concerning the moral state of mankind, — regeneration by the 
Holy Spirit,— justification by faith, — pardon and eternal salva- 
tion through the merits of the one Mediator, — the resurrection 
of the body, — and the final judgment, — the "everlasting de^ 
struction of them that obey not the gospel:" all these, as you 
will readily admit, are subjects of continual and earnest con- 
tention among those who profess to be christians. These 
doctrines then, according to your own representation, you and 
your liberal brethren carefully refrain from bringing into 
discussion before your hearers: or, if you mention them at all, 
yet only in such a manner, as not to come into conflict or col- 
lision, with any who differ from you on these great and car- 
dinal points. 

But, Sir, set these doctrines aside, and what is then left of* 
the Gospel of Jesus Christ? What is there loft, but mere 
natural religion — called indeed, in this enlightened age, 
rational chnstianity? — If, in your preaching, these doctrines 
are kept out of sight, or treated only in a manner so general, 
so vague, so ambiguous, as not directly and manifestly to 
clash with any of the various and opposite opinions, held by 
professed christians respecting them,- if you dwell "perpetu- 
ally" on other topicks; is it then strange, that your people 
and others arc left in utter uncertainty, as to what you be- 
lieve on these momentous points, and that you are considered 
as wanting in openness and clearness, and as practising 
reserve and concealment? 

"In thus avoiding controversy," you say, p. 15, "we have 
thought that we deserved not reproach, but some degree of 
praise for our self denial." For myself, I had understood 
from the Scriptures, that it required christian "self denial," 
not to shrink from an open avowal of our faith in the doc- 
trines of the gospel, and from "holding forth the faithful 
word" in the face of opposition,* but cordially to embrace 



them, openly to confess them, and meekly and charitably, 
yet firmly and courageously, to "contend" for them. And 
you will pardon me, Sir, if I do not yet see that much 
"praise" is due for your "self denial". You tell us explic- 
itly, that "to believe with Mr. Belsham is no crime." In 
your Sermon on Infidelity, you also say, p. 13, "For these," 
(reasons previously mentioned) "and other reasons, I am 
unwilling to believe, that infidelity has no source but deprav- 
ity of heart, and that it can never be traced to causes which 
may absolve it from guilt. It must be admitted indeed, 
that you do not regard with quite equal kindness, those who 
believe in Calvinism;, as is manifest from some very strong 
expressions of antipathy, and from your representation, than 
which I am greived to say, I have seldom if ever seen a more 
"distorted" and injurious one, of their sentiments. Is it, 
however, a crime to believe in Calvinism? when, in your es- 
timation, it is none to believe in the lowest Unitarianism, — 
and may be none to be an infidel. I presume that, notwith- 
standing the vehemence of your antipathy, you will hardly 
say it is. But if, in your estimation, errour of all kinds is 
innocent, then where is your "self denial" in refraining 
from assailing it, and where your claim to "praise" for 
"avoiding controversy?" 

There is still another point of view, and that a very seri- 
ous one, in which your "self denial," and your claim to 
"praise," should not fail to be considered. If, indeed, to 
believe in errour is "no crime," then to believe in the truth 
is no virtue. But, Sir, is it so represented in the word of 
God? Did Jesus Christ and his apostles conduct their minis- 
try, and enjoin it upon others to conduct theirs, in the man- 
ner in which, as you represent, you and your liberal brethren 
conduct yours? 

Jesus Christ says, "This is the condemnation, that light 
is come into the world, and men have loved darkness rather 
than light, because their deeds are evil. For every one 
that doeth evil hateth the light, and will not come to the 
light, lest his deeds should be reproved." Is not truth 
light, and errour darkness? Does then the great Teacher 
from heaven here represent a belief in errour to be no 



crime? — a belief in the truth to be no virtue? Or doe3 he 
limit the remark to infidelity ? — which, in your Sermon before 
referred to, you allow may sometimes proceed from "vice.' 7 
What is his meaning when, in his commission to his apostles 
and ministers, he says, "He that believeth," (in the truth 
undoubtedly) "shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be 
damned?" What is St, Paul's meaning, when he says, "Be- 
cause they received not the love of the truth, that they might 
he saved, — God shall send them strong delusion to believe a 
lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, 
but had pleasure in unrighteousness?" And St. Peter's, when 
lie says, "There were false prophets also among the people, 
even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily 
shall bring in damnable heresies,' even denying the Lord that 
bought them ? and bring upon themselves swift destruction?" 
If this language sound harsh and unfashionable, I trust, Sir, 
you will have the goodness not to impute the fault to me; 
and that you will not, on account of any unpleasantness in the 
language, refuse to give attention to the momentous senti- 
ment contained in it* . 

Did the apostles, then, studiously "avoid controversy?" 
Did they "seldom or never refer to any different sentiments 
embraced by other" professed "christians?" Never "attempt 
to refute" errour? Never assail any "system which they did 
not believe?" or any "denomination that differed from them?" 
Did they refrain from preaching high and mysterious doc- 
trines, lest they should "perplex, and needlessly perplex, a 
common congregation, consisting of all ages, capacities, de- 
grees of improvement, and conditions in society?" Did they, 
*'in compliance with a general system" of conduct, adopted 
by them, cautiously "exclude" from their preaching all con- 
troverted points, give up as unimportant and unprofitable 
every doctrine which any individuals, or bodies of professed 
christians, had ventured to deny or oppose, and "persuade 
themselves that the best method of promoting the holiness 
and salvation of mankind" was, "to urge on them perpetually 
those truths and precepts' about which there was little con- 
tention?" Had they done so, possibly they might not have 
been "made the offscouring of all things," and been exposed 



25 

to "deaths oft;" — but have "enjoyed singular prosperity," 
"found themselves respected by all classes of society," and 
been "distinguished by the eminent," and by those whom the 
world would call "the enlightened and the good." But did 
they not act upon an entirely opposite "system?" Did they 
not preach, "with much contention," a doctrine which was 
"to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness," 
— a doctrine which was "every where spoken against?" Were 
not their Epistles all of them controversial, in a greater or 
less degree, and some of them almost entirely? Did they not 
zealously contend for sentiments which were denied and op- 
posed, — and the more zealously in proportion as the opposi- 
tion was more powerful and determined? Did they not ear- 
nestly "denounce" false doctrines and false teachers? warn 
the churches and all men against every prevalent errour? 
and with the utmost solemnity say, "If we, or an angel from 
heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we 
have preached unto you, let him be accursed!" 

Though the apostles were invested with an extraordinary 
authority, yet you will certainly admit, that, in their love and 
zeal for the truth, and (due allowance being made for change 
of circumstances) in the manner of performing their ministry, 
they are examples for all the ministers of Christ. — If then, 
my dear Sir, you and your liberal brethren have chosen to 
adopt "a general system" of conduct in the ministry, alto- 
gether different from theirs, we must entreat you not to think 
it strange, if there are some who cannot accord to you all the 
"praise," which you "have thought that you deserved." And 
notwithstanding the assurance and the pathos, with which 
you make your "appeal" to your people, you must not expect 
that the minds of all will be entirely relieved from the painful 
apprehension, that both you and your people may be under 
some deception; or from the distressing doubt, whether, at 
the appearing of the Lord Jesus, you will be able in his 
presence to say to them, "We take you to record this day, 
that we are pure from the blood of all men; for we have not 
shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." 

III. "The Reviewer," you. say, "having charged us with 
"holding the opinions of Mr. Belsham, and hypocritically 



2$ 

'•concealing them, solemnly calls on christians who differ 
"from us in sentiment, *to come out and be separate from us, 
« 'and to withhold communion with us.' " Upon this topick 
your zeal rises to its utmost height. And it is, Sir, I con- 
fess, a subject most deeply interesting, and of a nature most 
strongly to excite the sensibilities of the soul. Here lies the 
danger. Upon this subject, it is extremely difficult to keep the 
passions still, and to attend with calmness, and meekness, and 
impartiality to the unadulterated dictates of reason and of scrip- 
ture. Yet scarcely can another subject be named, which more 
imperiously demands to be considered with the most dispas- 
sionate, docile, and unbiassed mind. I am fully aware that 
there have been in all ages, that there are in the present age, 
rash and fiery zealots, who are never more in their element, 
than when engaged in strifes and contentions, sowing discord 
among brethren, and rending the churches of Christ piece- 
meal. Sucli spirits are not easily restrained and regulated, by 
the councils of the more temperate, and considerate, but not 
less conscientious, and firm, and faithful. I am no less fully 
aware, that there have been in all ages, that there are in the 
present age, zealots of a quite different character, but not less 
rash and fiery, who are always ready to raise the cry of big- 
otry, illiberality, fanaticism, and persecution, against every 
measure and attempt, though conducted with the best spirit, 
and with the utmost prudence and regularity, for maintaining 
the cause of truth, and promoting the purity, order, and pros- 
perity of the churches. — It would be lamentable, Sir, indeed, 
should you descend from your proper elevation, and lend 
yourself, with all your weight and influence, to give a deeper 
tone, and a wider extent, to a cry so senseless and so unholy. 
It is to be lamented, that on a subject of this serious and mo- 
mentous kind, you should have thought it proper so entirely to 
dispense witli argument, and with all the scriptural consider- 
ations which, in relation to this subject, so forcibly press them- 
selves upon the conscience and the heart; and to indulge so 
freely in vague declamation, poignant invectice, and fervid 
appeal to popular prejudices and passions. I know full well, 
and too many know, that this is the way to strike the minds 
of that great majority of mankind, to whom thought andreflec- 



27 

tion are irksome; the method best adapted for the support of a 
bad cause. I am fully aware of your advantages in this res- 
pect. But, Sir, a minister of Jesus Christ should esteem it 
a higher honour and a nobler achievement, to enlighten the 
understanding and correct the conscience of a single individ- 
ual, than to rouse the passions and inflame the prejudices of 
thousands. — Declamation is always, for a very obvious rea- 
son, difficult to answer. Yours however, under the present 
head, is evidently bottomed on several assumptions, which I 
deem utterly inadmissible, and some of the principal of which 
I propose to consider. 

In the first place, you manifestly assume, that the points 
of doctrine, upon which you and your liberal brethren differ 
fronvyour opponents, are comparatively small and trivial; 
not "practical," but speculative merely, and such as do not 
materially affect christian character. — I trust, Sir, it has 
been made plain, under the preceding head, that this ought 
not to be assumed. According to your own concession, the 
party in whose behalf you plead, generally deny the essential 
divinity of the Saviour, and hold him to be a being entirely 
"distinct from God" — entirely "dependent," — in other words 
a mere creature. — But, Sir, between a being essentially 
divine, as by us the Saviour is held to be, and a mere crea- 
ture however "exalted," there is, as you will readily ad- 
mit, an infinite disparity. The Saviour, then, whom you 
acknowledge, is infinitely different from Him whom we ac- 
knowledge and adore. Your rock is not as our Rock, you your- 
selves being judges/ As your acknowledged Saviour is infi- 
nitely inferiour to ours, so too are the offices and the work 
which you assign to him. You doubtless do not suppose, that 
by any mere creature, atonement could be made for the sins 
of an apostate world, of sufficient merit for the pardon, sanc- 
tification, and eternal salvation, of all who should trust in him; 
therefore, if you hold to atonement in any sense, yet unques- 
tionably not in the sense of a proper propitiatory sacrifice. Up- 
on this denial of atonement, must follow of course the denial 
of pardon, procured by the Mod of Christ, — of justification 
solely through faith in him, — of redemption from eternal 
death unto everlasting life by him. Connected and, gener- 



28 

ally if not invariably, concomitant with the denial of these 
doctrines, is a denial of the Holy Spirit in his personal char- 
acter and offices, and of the renewal of mankind unto holiness 
by his sovereign agency, as held by orthodox christians. 

Now, Sir, are these small and trivial points of difference 
between you and us? The God whom you worship is differ- 
ent from ours; the Saviour whom you acknowledge is 
infinitely inferiour to ours; the salvation which you preach 
is immensely diverse from that which we preach. Though 
you call Jesus Christ master and Lord, and profess to believe 
in him and to love him; yet you do not, with the disciple who 
had long doubted, call him your Lord and your God; you 
do not believe on him for a salvation, meritoriously procured 
by his atoning blood, his vicarious merits; nor do you love 
him with supreme affection, or "honour him as you should 
honour the Father." 

Are the doctrines then, about which we differ, merely spec- 
ulative? Are they not practical, most vitally and essentially 
practical? Do they not go home to the heart directly, and 
claim an empire ever all the affections and powers of the soul? 
Is not a doctrine which essentially concerns the object of our 
worship, practical? — when, if we are wrong in regard to the 
object of our worship, we can hardly be right in any part of 
our religion. Are not the doctrines, which affect directly the 
very foundations of our faith, practical? — When a true faith is 
the grand requisition of the gospel, and the vital principle 
of all holy practice, of all the works which are good and 
acceptable in the sight of God. 

Hitherto, Sir, I have proceeded upon the ground of your 
general statement, and held more particularly in view your 
higher classes of liberal christians. But it is not to be over- 
looked, that you make your remonstrance against "separa- 
tion," not in favour of those higher classes only, but equally 
in favour of the lowest: — of those who believe in the "simple 
humanity of Jesus Christ," — who agree most nearly with Mr. 
B els ham; nay, Mr. Belsham himself, and those who agree 
with him entirely, were doubtles^iot intended to be excluded. 
You put in your earnest plea for the whole. The question, 
then, is a short one. Is not Mr. Belsham's gospel, as set 



29 

forth in this creed, another gospel, than that which Paul 
preached? If you are not willing to admit this; yet surely you 
cannot hesitate a moment to admit, that it is another, than 
that which is held by orthodox christians, — which is preached 
by orthodox ministers: — essentially different in every partic- 
ular from the foundation to the top stone. One or the other 
of these schemes, then, must be what St. Paul denominates 
"another gospel," and against which, and its abettors, he 
solemnly pronounces his apostolick anathema. The leading 
doctrines of Mohammed are not more diverse from the or- 
thodox views of Christianity, than are those which you would 
have us hold in our fellowship. The followers of Mohammed 
believe in Jesus Christ as a good man, and a great prophet; 
and are accustomed to regard him, I believe, with as high 
veneration, as are the lower Unitarians. 

Does it not then infinitely behove both you and us, instead 
of uttering vague declamations, and impassioned appeals, 
most seriously to weigh the very forcible declarations of the 
ingenuous Mr. Belsham himself: "Opinions such as these can 
no more harmonize with each other, than light and darkness, 
than Christ and Belial. They who hold doctrines so diamet- 
rically opposite, cannot be fellow worshippers in the same 
temple. It was expedient that they should separate." 

Another of your evident assumptions is, that every separa- 
tion between professed christians is unjustifiable; a criminal 
"schism," the guilt of which is chargeable upon those who 
insist upon it as requisite. Schism, Sir, in the scriptural 
sense, I certainly hold to be no light matter. But what is 
schism in the scriptural sense? Is it not a rending, a disrup- 
tion of the body of Christ, or of his true church? But are all 
who call themselves christians really members of the body of 
Christ? Do they all hold the Head? Do the scriptures teach 
this? — Do the scriptures represent that all separation from 
those who call themselves christians, all withdrawing of fel- 
lowship from them, is schismatick, is "heretical?" Do they 
enjoin upon the churches to hold in their fellowship all who 
profess to be christians, however corrupt in sentiment they 
may be? — Do they not on the contrary constantly insist on 
belief in the truth, as the very foundation of christian charac- 



m 

ter and of christian fellowship? and as solemnly warn the 
churches to keep clear of errour as of other sin? as earnestly 
exhort them to be steadfast in the truth, as in that holiness 
of heart and practice, to which the truth is conducive and 
absolutely necessary? 

If then, in obedience to the scriptures, and with the spirit, 
and in the manner, which the scriptures enjom, churches 
that are sound in the faith, separate themselves from such 
professed christians as deny all the fundamental, all the pecu- 
liar doctrines of the gospel, are those churches justly charge- 
able with the guilt of schism and heresy? Is an orthodox 
church to be charged with schism and heresy, for withholding 
fellowship from a church professedly of the sentiments of Mr. 
Belsham's creed? or for excluding from its communion, in 
the regular way of christian discipline, individual members 
who professedly hold the same sentiments? Or are members 
of Unitarian churches to be charged with schism and heresy, 
if, in the meek and faithful spirit of the gospel, they ask for 
dismission, and regularly withdraw from a fellowship which 
1j»ey believe to be not that of the apostles and prophets? 

How, indeed, is the fellowship for which you plead to be 
maintained? Upon this point you and your liberal brethren 
have taken care that we should be pretty fully informed. 
The orthodox churches must give up their creeds and» cov- 
enants, their Psalms and Hymns and Doxologies; must 
cease to insist on, as important, the great doctrines which 
they now hold to be fundamental and essential to the chris- 
tian faith; must exclude from their pulpits all mysterious 
and all controverted doctrines, — all that are not included in 
what is fashionably called liberal or rational Christianity; must 
consent, in a word, to have their preaching and worship con- 
ducted on such principles, and in such a manner, as will not 
disturb the minds of liberal christians, or Unitarians of any 
class! — Is not this, Sir, precisely the way most distinctly 
marked out, and most strenuously insisted on, in your peri- 
odical publications, in your ordination sermons, and in all 
your discourses and conversations on this subject? If the or- 
thodox ministers and churches will only consent to all this, 
the thing is done; all will be love, and peace, and fellow- 



31 

ship. That is, if they will consent to yield up as unscrip- 
tural or unimportant the doctrines of faith and the principles 
of worship, which they now hold most essential to christian 
character, devotion, and practice, — to hold it "no crime to 
believe as Mr. Belsham believes," and, to worship as he wor- 
ships; and thus cease to be orthodox, or in any respect mate- 
rially different from those called liberal christians; all the 
difficulty will be removed, and the way will be open and easy 
for an established and permanent fellowship, between them 
and Unitarians of all degrees. — Yes, Sir: and if Unitarians 
would cease to be Unitarians, and become orthodox chris- 
tians, the way would be equally unobstructed. 

But here lies the difficulty. The orthodox ministers and 
churches will not consent thus to yield up their faith and their 
worship: and from the earnest and abundant labour and 
pains which you and your liberal brethren have employed, to 
bring them to these terms, it is manifest that, unless they will 
consent, you do not yourselves suppose there can be fellow- 
ship between you and them. Because they do not consent, 
you continually charge them with being bigotted, illiberal, 
uncharitable; and now seem disposed to charge them even 
with schism and heresy. But, Sir, if on account of their 
steadfast adherence to their faith and worship a separation 
and non-fellowship ensue, does it not deeply concern you, as 
well as them, very seriously to consider on which side the 
guilt will lie? Unquestionably, notwithstanding any thing 
which you have said of your own, or quoted from Dr. Camp- 
bell, it must lie on that side, which the Redeemer and King 
of Zion shall judge to have removed itself from the founda- 
tion of the apostles and prophets. 

Your last assumption which I shall particularly consider 
is this: That it can be only from a bigotted, uncharitable 
and malignant spirit, — a "proud, censorious and overbear- 
ing temper," that a separation can be proposed. — In this, as 
well as in what you say on the subject of schism and heresy, 
you seem to forget that your liberal brethren m England 
have not only proposed a separation, but have actually car- 
ried the proposition into effect; and that your heavy charges 
against your opponents here, recoil with all their force upon 



your transaUantick friends. Tliis, however, is no concern 
of ours. 

We have been, my dear Sir, so long accustomed to hear 
the vehement charges of uncharitableness, illiberality, and 
bigotry, vociferated lagainst us from your quarter, that we 
have ceased to be greatly disquieted by them. We "hear the 
angry thunder murmur at a distance, with as little concern 
as if it were the thunder of the pope, from whom it seems in- 
deed to be borrowed." — The reason of these charges has been 
explained in the foregoing remarks. Your modesty and con- 
sistency in them are notable. You set out with asserting, 
that religion consists in charity; in charity, to be sure, in 
your own sense of the word; you then claim all this same 
charity as belonging to yourselves, and allow none of it to 
us: and thus, in effect, you deny that w r e have true religion. 
Yet the very reason why we are thus "denounced" as desti- 
tute of charity is, that we do not, as you allege, allow the 
genuineness of your religion. You may then deny the 
genuineness of our religion, and yet be most charitable; but 
if we entertain any doubt of the genuineness of yours, we 
must be utterly destitute of charity! 

There is no word more abused than charity. Its scriptural 
meaning, as you very well know, is love; holy love to God 
and men: that love which is "the end of the commandment" 
and "the fulfilling of the law." In this sense it is indeed 
the essence — the sum of religion. Is it then a violation of 
the great law of love, for the friends of truth to decline com- 
munion with its rejecters? — We have nothing to do here 
with slight diversities of opinion; with differences about 
modes, or forms, or inconsiderable points of faith or prac- 
tice. Our concern is with differences of a radical and fun- 
damental nature; such as exist between orthodox christians 
and Unitarians of all degrees, even down to the creed of Mr. 
B els ham: for to this point you have yourself fairly reduced 
the present question. — Yes, Sir, the simple point here at is- 
sue is, Whether it be a violation of the law of love, for be- 
lievers in the true gospel of Jesus Christ, to separate from 
believers in another and an opposite gospel? If yours is the 
true gospel, then ours is another; if ours is the true gospel. 



So 

then yours is another. In either case, the great question 
respecting fellowship remains the same. 

You will certainly agree with me, that whatever tends di- 
rectly to the maintenance and promotion of truth, cannot be 
incompatible with love to God, or love to men. Jesus Christ 
came into the world to bear witness to the truth. His apos- 
tles were appointed to be witnesses to the truth; which they 
were to propagate at every hazard, and which they, like 
their divine Master, finally sealed with their blood. His 
church was established to be "the pillar and ground of the 
truth." The great design of the christian ministry in all 
age is, to maintain and promote the truth. It is by means 
of the truth, that the glory of God is advanced in the world; 
and that mankind are guided into the way of peace, and 
sanctified for the kingdom of immortal glory. Love to God 
and men then requires, as a duty of primary obligation, that 
the churches of Christ, the ministers of the gospel, and all 
christians should do what they can for the promotion of truth. 

We advance then to another question: would it conduce 
more to the promotion of truth for the believers in Vie true 
gospel, to hold fellowship with the believers in another gos- 
pel, than to separate from them? — We have seen in what way 
only this fellowship can be maintained. If it is to be main- 
tained, the principal doctrines of the gospel must cease to be 
clearly preached; divine worship must Cease to be conducted 
©n principles distinguishing^ christian; every principle or 
truth which is controverted, must be yielded up, as no long- 
er to be urged or defended; and the friends of truth must 
conform to the abetters of errour. All this must take place 
to a degree proportionate to the extension and closeness of 
the fellowship. — But is this, Sir, the way to maintain and 
promote the truth in the church and in the world? Is it 
not rather the way to extinguish at once the light of the 
ministry, the light of the church, the light of the gospel? 
to throw back the children of light into darkness and the 
shadow of death, and to leave the prince of darkness to 
triumph in an unlimited and undisturbed empire? — Would 
not the first and most certain effect be, the general preva- 
lence of the opinion and the feeling. — already, alas! too 



34 

prevalent, — that truth is not worth contending' for, that the 
great doctrines of the gospel are of very little importance? 
What then would he the consequence? — Shew me a man 
who cherishes this opinion, this feeling, and I will shew 
you one, who, far from going to the cross or to the stake, 
like the apostles and the host of holy martyrs, will make 
no sacrifice, no exertion, for the spread or the support of 
the truth: nay, one, who is already himself bound hand and 
foot with the silken cords of errour, and whose "deceived 
heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, 
nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" And let this 
opinion and feeling generally prevail, and where shall we 
find those who will be "valiant for the truth upon the earth?" 
"Whatsoever maketh manifest is light." Would not the 
separation in question make manifest? Would it not serve 
to hold up the distinguishing truths of the gospel, and to 
shew their importance, to the greatest advantage and with 
the best effects? Would it not tend to wake up the slumber- 
ing multitude, to excite them to earnest and serious inquiry, 
and to prevent their perishing for lack of knowledge, "fast 
by the oracle of God?" 

Is it then certain, that a proposal, that even an earnest call 
for this, can only proceed froiri a "malignant, proud, and 
censorious spirit?" Is it certain, that such a proposal or call 
might not proceed from the same spirit of holy charity, 
which ruled the hearts and fired the zeal of the apostles 
and faithful brethren of the primitive times, and of the distin- 
guished ministers and confessors of the Reformation? the 
spirit which achieved such wonders for the honour of Christ 
and the salvation of men; but which in those illustrious peri- 
ods, as it has been in all succeeding ages, was violently de- 
nounced, as the spirit of fanaticism, malignity, and pride. 

Far be it from me to stand forth the advocate of a violent 
"system of denunciation and exclusion," or of rash, disorder- 
ly, or uncharitable measures. I am fully aware that there is 
danger, great danger on this hand. And did it belong to me 
to assume prelatical dignity, and like you to give, ex catktdra, 
"admonitions" to my brethren, the sum of my advice and ex- 
hortations should be, Brethren, "let all things be done de- 



eently and in order;" — "let all your things be done with char- 
ity." — The spirit of Christianity is not to be violated; the 
rules of the gospel are not to be disregarded; the vastly in- 
teresting considerations, belonging to the subject on the one 
side and on the other, are not to be treated with lightness. 

But, Sir, the differences which exist between the Unitarians 
and the orthodox christians are certainly of a nature, to de- 
mand the most serious and earnest attention. They concern, 
most directly and essentially, the glory of God, the honour of 
the Saviour, the welfare of the church, and the salvation of 
men. In comparison with these, the differences between Dis- 
senters and Episcopalians, between Psedobaptists and Anti- 
psedobaptists, are matters of mere feature and complexion. 
Utterly in vain is the attempt to put these differences out of 
sight, to conceal their magnitude and momentous consequen- 
ces; or by a raised cry of bigotry, illiberality, and intolerance, 
to divert the publick attention from them. They must and 
will be fearlessly discussed and seriously considered; and 
ministers and churches, profeised christians and all others, 
must and will be brought to the solemn decision, — whether 
they will be for Christ or against him, — whether they will re- 
ceive and hold fast his truth, or despise and reject it, — whether 
they will bow to his authority and trust in his grace, or refuse 
to have him to reign over them and contemn his salvation. 

In the mean time, Charity, heaven-born Charity, must be 
allowed to weep and lament over the inroads of errour and 
the desolations of Zion. Yes, Sir, charmed not at all with 
the so loudly chaunted praises of increased "light," — abashed 
not at all by the disdainful sneers at imputed fanaticism, — 
she will weep — that her adored Lord is denied his divine 
honours, in the beloved city of our solemnities, where our 
fathers saw his glory, and delighted to celebrate his wonderful 
works of love and mercy. 

Thus, Sir, have I attended, amid various unpropitious cir- 
cumstances, to some of the principal things in your Letter. 
There are others which I certainly deem not unexceptiona- 
ble, but which my design does not require, nor my limits per- 
mit me particularly to notice. If in any instance, I have 
misapprehended you, misrepresented you, or done any injus- 



36 

tice to you or to others, I can truly, I think, say it has been 
unintentional; and to correct any errour, or redress any 
wrong, would afford me real pleasure. 

I have done what I have felt to be a painful duty. The 
Lord pardon what is wrong, — and prosper what is right. 
And may the Spirit of truth guide us into all truth, and 
cause us to "see eye to eye," — keep his people from falling, 
fill the churches with light and peace, and make his word 
"mightily to grow and prevail." 
I am, Rev. and dear Sir, 

With sentiments of affectionate respect, 
Your friend and brother, 

SAMUEL WORCESTER. 
Salem, July 15, 1815. 

POSTSCRIPT. 

I fi>'d I hare part of a spare page, and have theught fit to occupy it with some 
smaller matters. 

You say, p. 6, "Dr. Watts in the latter part of his life was decidedly an Uni- 
tarian." — 1 am amazed that such an assertion could have been hazarded by you: 
an assertion, which Mr. Belsham, strongly desirous as he was to make out some- 
thing in favour of his cause, from Dr. VVatts's "last thoughts," durst not make. 
From what Mr. Belsham has presented on this subject, 1 should certainly con- 
clude, even had I no other means of judging, and I believe every candid person 
would conclude, that the vague reports, so industriously circulated, of the Unita- 
rianism of Dr. Watts, are most unsolidly founded, and most injurious to the mem- 
ory of that great and good man. That he had a peculiar manner of explaining 
the mystery of the Trinity 1 do not deny; but, after no little attention to the 
subject, I do deny that there is any proof of his being a Unitarian; and am firm in 
the belief, that "he maintained to the last the true divinity of the Son and of the 
Holy Spirit." 

In your zeal to strengthen your cause, you have numbered with Unitarians 
'-Dr. Barnard;" I suppose the late Dr. Barnard of this town, whose name I 
would never mention but with particular affection and respect. I lave great 
satisfaction in being able to assure you, that Dr. Barnard, but a few months before 
his death, explicitly and emphatically denied his being a Unitarian, and professed 
his belief in the essential divinity of Jesus Christ. If you wish for more proof to 
the same effect it can be produced. 

Of "President Willard," whom you also place on the same list, I am not able 
to speak with the same positiveness; but from information, on which I place 
great reliance, I believe you are not warranted in numbering him with Unitarians. 

The manner in which you have denounced the Panoplist, demands, 1 think, 
your most serious reconsideration. To denounce with a spirit so violent, and 
upon grounds so unsolid, a publication of such well earntd reputation, and such 
extensive usefulnesses to assume a responsibility of no ordinary kind. 

I have seen your "Additional Remarks;" and you must permit me to say, that 
I think neither yourself, nor the President of Harvard College, nor any friend to 
vou or him, will" long regard them with much complacency. What you say on 
the subject of "j.srrnNAGE," is truly remarkable. I really did not know that 
there was any law of Rod or man, forbidding people to remark on publick per- 
formances, or to publish what they hear delivered in publick. If 1 have trans- 
gressed, in mentioning what I have, of a Sermon, which 1 heard at an Ordina- 
tion, I hope that my utter ignorance of the law will be admitted to due consid- 
eration. S. W. 



REMARKS 



THE REV. DR. WORCESTER'S 

LETTER TO MR. CHANNING, 

ON THE 

"REVIEW OF AMERICAN UNITARIANISM" 
IN A LATE PANOPLIST. 



BY 

WILLIAM E. CHANNING, 

? Minister of the Church of Christ in Federal Street. 



SECOND EDITION. 



BOSTON : 

fRINTED AND PUBLISHED BV VIMS AM) LriLY 

1815. 



REMARKS, $c. 



By the advice of friends, whose judgment I respect, I 
have resolved to offer to the publick some remarks on 
the letter of Dr. Worcester, in reply to mine addressed 
to Mr. Thacher. They will be few in number, and as 
free as possible from personalities. When I under- 
stood that my letter was to be answered by Dr. Wor- 
cester, I felt and expressed great satisfaction. I 
regarded Dr. Worcester as a man of candour, mode- 
ration, and liberal feelings. I had reason to suppose, 
that as a minister, he would understand the feelings 
of his brethren, whose uprightness had been so wan- 
tonly assailed in the Panoplist Review, and whose 
influence and usefulness that publication was de- 
signed to destroy. I trusted, that whilst be would 
openly express disapprobation of some of my opin- 
ions, he would still appear in the honourable cha- 
racter of a peacemaker among christians. But I 
have been disappointed. His letter, though milder 
in language, breathes too much of the spirit of the 
Review. I feel, however, no disposition to retali- 
ate. His letter, I will hope, is not to be considered 
as an expression of his general temper ; and al- 
though it is too obviously designed to drive both me 



and my brethren from the church and the ministry, 
yet, in obedience to that Master, who has forbidden 
me to render evil for evil, I have no desire to rob 
Dr. Worcester of his character as a christian, or a 
christian teacher. 

My letter to Mr. Thacher is considered by Dr. 
Worcester as bitter and severe ; but called, as I was, 
to repel the charge of immorality brought against 
men, whose virtue and piety I know and honour, 
and to whom I am bound by ties of friendship and 
christian affection, I felt it a solemn duty to ex- 
press what I deemed a virtuous indignation. 1 la- 
boured however to temper displeasure with christian 
moderation ; and, on finishing my letter, my fear was, 
not that I had expressed an improper warmth, but 
that I should be considered as wanting sensibility 
to the injuries done to some of the best men in this 
community. I know, however, the many weaknesses 
and imperfections of my nature. I may have erred, 
for the provocation was great ; and I sincerely re- 
peat the declaration witli which I closed my letter, 
that for every departure from the spirit of the gospel, 
I implore the divine forgiveness. On the present 
occasion I am called to defend myself, rather than my 
brethren, and I am therefore at liberty to suppress 
the feelings which weie awakened by many parts 
of Dr. Worcester's letter. 

There is one particular in which I am indebted 
to Dr. Worcester, and I hasten to express my obli- 
gation. He has pointed out an inaccuracy in the 
language which I have employed to express the 



5 

charges contained in the Review. I have said, 
that the Review " asserts that the ministers of this 
town and its vicinity, and the great body of liberal 
christians, are Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense of 
the word." It is true, that this passage may be un- 
derstood as charging the Review with asserting, that 
all the ministers of Boston of all denominations are 
Unitarians of Mr. Belsham's school. I ought to 
have said, that the Review maintains — that the great 
body of liberal ministers in Boston and its vicinity, 
and of liberal christians, are Unitarians, in Mr. Bel- 
sham's sense of the word. I was probably led into 
this inaccuracy, by the manner in which the phrase 
" Boston clergy" is used in the Review ; a phrase 
as broad as the u ministers of Boston," and which 
is employed by the Reviewer to designate the liberal 
ministers alone. I wrote too with a strong convic- 
tion, which is still in no degree impaired, that the Re- 
viewer intended to fix on liberal ministers and chris- 
tians, considered as a class, the sentiments of Mr. Bel- 
sham. I therefore made the statement with too little 
precision. I thank Dr. Worcester for detecting the 
inaccuracy, and if it has made a false impression on 
my readers, (which I think can very rarely have oc- 
curred,) I desire to express my sorrow for the wrong 
I have unintentionally done to the Reviewer. 

This correction however affects very slightly the 
merits of the question. I still maintain, what I intend- 
ed to maintain in my letter, that the Review was 
designed to represent the great body of liberal min- 
isters in this town and vicinity, and the liberal party 



6 

in general, as Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense of 
the word ; and that it charges these ministers and the 
leading members of the liberal party with artifice, 
hypocrisy, and base concealment. This statement 
of the charges contained in the Review, Dr. Wor- 
cester pronounces to be unauthorized and incorrect. 
There is a short way, and it is the only way, of set- 
tling this dispute. I beg every reader to examine 
the Review for himself, and to ask, from the impres- 
sion made on his own mind, what is its obvious im- 
port and design. I offered but a few out of several 
passages which support the charges I have made. 
Let every man read for himself ; I ask no more. It 
is indeed possible, that by reading as a lawyer, 
who wishes to force every passage to say as little as 
possible, he may make the Review a very mild and 
harmless thing. I know too, that here and thera 
some qualifying language may be found, under which 
the Reviewer, if he will stoop to it, may strive to 
take refuge. But the question is, not what a verbal 
critick, with a dictionary in his hand, may make out of 
the Review, but what are the impressions which 
readers at large receive from it, of the sentiments 
and character of the great body of liberal ministers 
and christians. This is the fair and established rule 
by which we are to judge of writings, and especially 
of those in which moral character is assailed. 
The question, and the only question, is, what will 
men of common sense and common feelings gather 
from this Review. On this point, I did not suppose 
that a doubt could exist. I never anticipated any 



difference of construction. I thought it as impossi- 
ble to err in regard to the obvious import and design 
of this publication, as to mistake midnight for noon. 
An attempt to prove that the Review was not written 
in English, would hardly have surprised me more, 
than the attempt which has been made to show that 
it does not convey the impressions I have stated. I 
very much suspect, from what Dr. Worcester has 
observed about our (i temporizing" and " culpable 
disguise," that before he finished his letter, he under- 
stood the Review not very differently from myself, 
But enough has been said on this first head of Dr. 
Worcester's letter. 

The next great object of Dr. Worcester's letter, if 
I understand him, is to convey to his readers the 
impression, that our mode of preaching is " conceal- 
ed, indistinct, and unfaithful." This he attempts to 
prove, first from the statement which I made of the 
views of liberal christians in relation to the character 
of Jesus Christ. This statement, he says, is ambi- 
guous and indistinct. That it is general, that it does 
not descend to particulars, I grant ; but I deny that 
it is ambiguous, if considered, as it ought to be, in 
relation to the object for which it was made. Does 
not Dr. Worcester perfectly know, that it was simply 
designed to repel the charge of the Reviewer, that 
we are Unitarians in Mr. Belsham's sense of the 
word ? Was it necessary, that in sucli a statement 
every question should be met and answered, which 
may possibly be started in relation to our sentiments ? 
Have not I, in my turn, an equal right to reproach 



8 

Dr. Worcester with ambiguity and indistinctness ? 
Has he any where told us, which of the many, very 
many explanations of the Trinity he and his brethren 
embrace, and are determined to impose on us as the 
term of christian communion ? Has he told us the 
precise scheme of atonement which he adopts, or 
which of the many definitions of faith he has selected? 
How easily might this reply be extended ? But I 
pass to the next consideration. 

The next proof of our preaching in a " concealed, 
indistinct, and unfaithful manner," is derived from the 
account which I have given of our general style of 
preaching. I did think that this account was too 
simple to be misunderstood. My statement was 
plainly this — that we labour to preach the truth, to 
preach whatever we clearly discover in the word of 
God ; but that, in doing this, we generally avoid refer- 
ences to opinions which we do not receive, and never 
hold up those christians who differ from us to cen- 
sure or contempt. According to this statement, we 
evidently preach the whole counsel of God, as far 
as we understand it. But Dr. Worcester, passing 
over this account, has selected a passage, in which I 
observe, that " we urge perpetually those great truths 
and precepts about which there is little contention, 
and which have an immediate bearing on the temper 
and life." From this passage he infers, that we can 
urge none of the " primary and peculiar doctrines 
66 and institutions • of the Gospel, because about all 
these there has been great contention." To this I an- 
swer, first, that I have never understood, that there has 
been much contention about the "realyrecejpte" of 



the gospel, not even about those which have been most 
habitually disregarded. Christians, satisfied with dis- 
missing these from their lives, have retained them in 
their systems. Even the bitterest persecuters in the 
church have never disputed the precepts of " loving 
their neighbour as themselves," and of "doing to others 
as they would have others do to them." On 'die con- 
trary, they have insisted, that burning, beheading, de- 
faming and denouncing those, whom they called here- 
ticks, were perfectly consistent with christian love^ 
and were even bright expressions of evangelical cha- 
rity ! — It may next be observed, that the common dis- 
putes about the " great doctrines" of the gospel 
have not related so much to their truth and impor- 
tance as to some inferiour points connected with 
them. For example, there has been much de- 
bate about the benevolence of God, whether it 
forms his whole moral character, and his highest 
spring of action, of whether it be subordinate to wis- 
dom or rectitude ; but all parties have agreed that 
God is benevolent. In the same manner, many have 
disputed about the omnipresence of God, whether his 
substance be extended through infinite space, or whe- 
ther he be present only by his knowledge and power 
to every portion of space. But all have agreed that 
God is omnipresent. In like manner christians have 
disputed about the precise way in which Christ's 
d&ath has an influence on our forgiveness ; but that 
it has a real and important influence on forgiveness, 
almost all unite in asserting. Once more, Christians 
have never been weary with disputing on the mode 



10 

and extent of spiritual influences ; but, with very 
few exceptions, all maintain that- these influences are 
real and are promised to our prayers. Let no one then 
say, that we preach no primary or peculiar doctrines 
of Christianity because we insist perpetually on prin- 
ciples in which the different classes of Christians 
generally concur. Such principles, we sincerely 
believe, form the very substance and glory of the 
gospel. They shine with a clear and unsullied splen- 
dour. We are deeply impressed with their truth, 
their supreme importance, and their sufficiency to 
salvation ; and therefore we urge them with unwearied 
importunity, with zeal and affection. It is very pos- 
sible that Br. Worcester will go on to object, that, 
according to this very account, our preaching must 
be very general, vague, wanting in precision, and 
therefore unfaithful. The answer is short. If we 
are indeed general and vague in our representa- 
tion of the trutjis of the Gospel, it is because we are 
faithful, because we dare not be precise above what 
is written, because we stop where the Scriptures seem 
to us to stop, and because we have a very deep and 
sorrowful persuasion, that our religion has been ex- 
ceedingly defaced and corrupted by the bold attempts 
of theologians to give minute explanations of its gen- 
eral truths, and to cramp it with the fetters of syste- 
matick precision. We tell our hearers, that God sent 
his Son to die for us, exalted him to be our Prinze 
and Saviour, and ordained him to be judge of the 
quick and dead, and never think it necessary or 
faithful to fill up the outline of Scripture, by adding, 



11 

that the Son, who was sent, was the very God wlio 
sent him, or by speculating on the infinite evil of sin, 
and on the necessity of an infinite atonement, in order 
to illustrate the fitness of such a mediator. Thus, 
then, we preach. Whether our preaching be nothing 
more than the inculcation of " natural religion/' 
let our hearers determine. 

Dr. Worcester, to render our mode of preaching 
odious, asks, if the " apostles avoided controversy," 
and never "attempted to refute errour," &e. &c. We 
think the answer very obvious. In the first place, we 
wonder that any can confound the situation of min- 
isters in a christian country, where the gospel has 
long been known and acknowledged, with the situa- 
tion of the apostles, who preached a new religion 
which the multitude derided and opposed, and which 
their new and ignorant converts were continually 
corrupting with Jewish and heathen mixtures. We 
sincerely believe, that the great principles, for which 
the apostles contended, are now received with little 
dispute in Christian communities, and we conceive 
that the great business of a minister is to urge those 
truths in their primitive simplicity on the hearts and 
consciences of men, instead of making them subjects 
of controversy. 

There is another important remark on this point. 
We do not pass sentence like apostles on many 
subjects of controversy among christians, for this 
very plain reason — that we are not apdltles. We 
are, what we labour never to forget, uninspired and 
fallible men, and we are apt to distrust ourselves, 
when persons of intelligence and piety see cause to 



in 

differ from us in the interpretation of Scripture. We 
dare not preach like apostles on points which have 
perplexed and divided men of the profoundest thought 
and the purest lives ; and we know from the genius 
and leading principles of Christianity, that these 
points are not, and cannot be essential to salvation. 
We dare not imitate the bold and positive language, 
in which the darkest doctrines are sometimes urged 
as undoubted and essential: and in which the sentence 
of excommunication is pronounced on serious inqui- 
rers after truth, by some who discover no superiority 
of intellect or virtue. 

I now come to a part of Dr. Worcester's letter 
which, if I were to consult my feelings rather than 
my sense of duty, I should pass over in silence. I 
refer to his insinuation, that we have adopted a style 
of preaching opposed to that of the apostles, because 
we wish to avoid the sufferings which those holy men 
encountered, and wish to secure the favour of the 
world. Dr. Worcester's language is sufficiently soft 
and guarded, and by certain rules of criticism it may 
perhaps be proved to mean little or nothing. But I 
am accustomed to judge of writings, which affect 
moral character, by the impression which they make 
on the mass of readers ; and the impression produced 
by Dr. Worcester undoubtedly is, that we are guilty 
of base compliances, and of shunning to declare the 
whole counsel of God from regard to human applause. 
I have already intimated, that I am not disposed to 
notice the sarcasms, verbal criticisms, and half- 
humorous expressions of regard which are scattered 



-through Dr. Worcester's letter, and directed against 
myself. But reproaches cast on my friends and 
brethren, on men whose piety and virtues entitle 
them to respect, I shall always repel, let them come 
from what quarter they may. Dr. Worcester owes 
it to himself, to cast away these dishonourable wea- 
pons. It does not become him to strengthen the 
hands of those, who are assailing the honest reputa- 
tion of his brethren — Besides, is it very clear, that we, 
above all other ministers in this country, are swayed 
and corrupted by human opinion ? Is it not noto- 
rious, that we have espoused an unpopular cause? 
Is it not the boast of the Reviewer, that from Con- 
necticut to Georgia all " orthodox christians" deny 
us communion ? Is it not notorious, that beyond a 
narrow sphere our names are loaded with reproach ? 
It is true, we receive marks of affection and respect at 
home, far, far beyond our consciousness of desert. But 
do aspiring men confine their views to their homes ? 
And is it not a fact, that unwearied pains are employ- 
ed to rob us even of this limited esteem, to alienate- 
from us our friends and societies ? If we indeed 
prefer applause to principle, why is it, that we do 
not accommodate our language to the system of our 
opponents, adopt a few popular phrases, call our- 
selves Trinitarians, on the ground of our believing in 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and thus 
turn from us, (as we easily might without giving 
offence to our hearers) the torrent of reproach and 
denunciation. — It is a little remarkable, that gentle- 
men, who, as they boast, have all the colleger of the 



14 

country on their side with one solitary exception, 
who have at their command literary honours, seats 
in conventions, in general assemblies, and in the 
largest religious associations, should take credit to 
themselves for self-denial, and for preaching unpopu- 
lar truth, and should lay at our door, as peculiarly 
ours, the sins of compliance with the prejudices and 
passions of mankind. I make this remark, not from 
any desire to cast back the charge of Dr. Worcester 
on himself or his friends, but simply with the view 
of shewing the inconsistency of the insinuations by 
which the reputation of my brethren is to be blasted. 
I now come to what appears to me the third great 
object of Dr. Worcester, in his letter. I refer to his 
attempts to render our sentiments odious, and to jus- 
tify those who, on account of our sentiments, would 
exclude us from the christian church. To render 
our sentiments odious, he again and again intimates, 
that Unitarians, of course, reject all the great and 
distinguishing doctrines of the gospel, particularly 
the doctrine of atonement by Christ's death. Is it 
possible that Dr. Worcester has not read so common 
a writer as Dr. Samuel Clarke, the most popular 
perhaps of all Unitarian writers, and in whose works 
the doctrine of atonement, as commonly held, is in- 
sisted on with great frequency and force? Has 
he not learned from so common a book as u Bible 
News," that many Unitarians sincerely believe, that 
the efficacy of Christ's death in obtaining forgiveness 
must be inexpressibly greater upon their system, 
than upon tfce system of the Trinitarians, which 



15 

makes the sufferings of Jesus nothing more than th? 
sufferings of a man. There is one sentence of Dr. 
Worcester on this subject which amazed me. He 
says to me, " you will, doubtless, not hesitate to ac- 
" knowledge, what I have certainly great sorrow in 
" stating, that the doctrines of atonement by Christ's 
" death, and justification through faith in his blood, 

" AS HELD BY ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS IN ALL AGES 

" of the church, fall at once to the ground before 
" you." Astonishing assertion ! If I were not as- 
sured that Dr. Worcester is a man of respectability, 
I should be tempted to say, Astonishing hardihood of 
assertion ! What ! does Dr. Worcester really be- 
lieve, that I will acknowledge, without hesitation, 
that I reject these or any other doctrines, as they 
were held by "orthodox christians," in the age of 
Christ and of his apostles, or as held by " orthodox 
christians" in any age of the church f I sincerely 
believe that this strange assertion is not to be ascribed 
to bad intention, but to haste and inadvertence. 
I regret however that a sentence, so adapted to 
awaken popular passions, should have escaped 
from his pen. I am not disposed to protract this 
controversy by stating what I conceive to be the 
prevalent sentiments of liberal christians on the 
subject of Christ's mediation. I will only say, that 
had Dr. Worcester known them better, he would 
have spoken on this, as on some other subjects, with 
much greater caution.-— Before leaving this head, I 
would protest against Dr. Worcester's habit of 
fastening on his opponents the consequences which 



16 

tseem to him to follow from this system. This prac- 
tice is unfair and injurious, and has betrayed Dr. 
Worcester into misrepresentation. Suppose that I, 
availing myself of this expeditious way of settling 
the opinions of others, shonkl make a collection of 
the inferences which seem to me to flow from the 
doctrine that God is the author of sin, and suppose 
that I should publish this collection to the world as 
the creed of those christians, by whom this doctrine 
is received ; would they not reproach mt as a libel- 
ler ? But I have no disposition to fasten this or any 
other bad name on Dr. Worcester. 

Another method adopted by Dr. Worcester for 
rendering our sentiments odious, is this. It is urged, 
that our sentiments lead us into an entire indifference 
to christian truth ; that we believe all errour to be 
innoceut : that we consider belief in the truth as no 
virtue ; and that we thus set aside those passages of 
scripture in which the highest importance is attached 
to this belief. This objection is founded on our 
extending the name and privileges of christians to 
the lowest Unitarians, who hold some sentiments, 
from which, as I stated, we generally shrink with 
aversion. Now I deny that any indifference to 
truth, or any contempt of those passages which 
enjoin belief of the truth, is implied in this extension 
of our charity. I indeed very readily grant, that 
i6 belief of the truth/' in the ordinary acceptation of 
that phrase, does not seem to us a virtue ; and for 
this, among other reasons, that were it so, Satan 
might boast of higher virtue than any saint on earth. 



17 

Satan believes and trembles. The faith to which 
salvation is promised in scripture, seems to us to 
reside in the heart much more than in the under- 
standing. The true believer is distinguished not by 
clearness and extent of views, but by a " love of 
light," a " love of the truth," originating in a sincere 
desire to " do the will of God." We wonder that 
Dr. Worcester did not discover this obvious princi- 
ple in the very passages which he has quoted to con- 
demn our liberality towards the erroneous. "This 
" is the condemnation, that light is come into the 
" world, and men loved darkness rather than light, 
" because their deeds were evil." " Because they 
(i received not the love of the truth, God shall send 
" them strong delusion, that all might be damned, 
" who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in 
" unrighteousness." This love of divine truth, this 
honest, unprejudiced, obedient mind, we highly 
venerate and always enjoin as essential to salvation. 
But we know that this love of truth is consistent 
with the reception of many errours. We know that 
the apostles, during the life of their master, possessed 
this temper in a sufficient degree to constitute them 
his followers, and yet they grossly misunderstood 
some of his plainest and most important declarations. 
We believe too that at the present day, many in every 
christian country are placed in circumstances, almost 
if not quite as unfavourable to a clear understanding 
of the gospel, as the apostles were under the minis- 
try of Jesus. From considerations of this nature, 
from a knowledge of the amazing power of education 
3 



18 

and other circumstances over the opinions of every 
mind, and from a fear that we, as well as others, may 
have been swayed and blinded by unsuspected infe- 
licities attending our condition, we are very unwilling 
to decide on the degree of truth, which is required to 
the salvation of every individual, or to say that the 
errours of an apparently sincere professor of Chris- 
tianity are inconsistent with a pious character. In 
our judgment of professed christians, we are guided 
more by their temper and lives than by any pecu- 
liarities of opinion. We lay it down as a great and 
indisputable principle, clear as the sun at noonday, 
that the great end for which christian truth is re- 
vealed, is the sanctification of the soul, the formation 
of the christian character : and wherever we see the 
marks of this character displayed in a professed 
disciple of Jesus, we hope, and rejoice to hope, that 
he has received all the truth which is necessary to 
his salvation. Acting on this rule, we cannot ex- 
clude from the church the lowest Unitarians who 
profess subjection to Jesus Christ. Of this class we 
have known or heard of individuals, who have 
breathed the genuine spirit of their master ; who 
have discovered a singular conscientiousness in all 
the walks of life ; whose charity has overflowed in 
good deeds ; whose wills have been resigned in 
affliction ; and who lived as seeking a better country, 
even a heavenly. Such men we have not dared to 
exclude from the christian church, on the ground of 
what seem to us great errours, any more than to ex- 
clude the disciples of Calvin ; whose errours we also 



19 

deeply lament, but whose errours are often concealed 
from us by the brightness of their christian virtues. 

We are not conscious, that by this liberality we 
at all oppose those passages of scripture, in which 
great stress is laid upon belief of the truth ; for we 
are convinced, from laborious research into the scrip- 
tures, that the great truth, which is the object of 
christian belief, and which in the first age conferred 
the character of disciples on all who received it, is 
simply this, that Jesus is the Christ, or anointed by 
God to be the light and saviour of the world. When- 
ever this great truth appears to us to be sincerely 
acknowledged, whenever a man of apparent upright- 
ness declares to us his reception of Jesus in this 
character, and his corresponding purpose to study 
and obey his religion, we feel ourselves bound to 
give him the hand of christian fellowship, and to 
leave it to the final judge to determine how far he is 
faithful in searching after the will of his Lord. This 
duty of searching, and of searching with humility and 
with a single and fearless regard to truth, we con- 
stantly inculcate; and we sincerely believe, that in 
this way we approve ourselves friends of truth much 
more sincerely, than if we should aim to terrify and 
prostrate the minds of our hearers, by threatening 
them with everlasting misery, unless they receive the 
peculiar views of the gospel, which we have seen fit 
to espouse. 

There is a part of Dr. Worcester's letter, accord- 
ing to which our charity towards the lowest Unita- 
rians not only proves our indifference to truth; but 



makes us partakers in their sentiments aud deeds. 
Because we bear (i no decided testimony against 
them," and because we are called by the same 
general name of " liberal christians," Dr. Worcester 
thinks that we were properly confounded with them 
by the Reviewer. I wonder that Dr. Worcester did 
not perceive that this argument was a two-edged 
sword, and might do equal execution among friends 
and foes. It is well known that the old fashioned 
Calvinists in general regard the "new divinity" of the 
Hop k i ns i anas with great horrour ; but it is also true 
that " a peculiar brotherhood is established" between 
these two classes of Christians in New-England. 
They both by mutual consent take shelter under the 
name of " orthodox." The Calvinists here have 
never, as a party, borne testimony against Hopkin- 
sian peculiarities, have never " purged themselves 
from the guilt of them," but walk with Hopkinsians 
on as friendly terms as we do with the low est Unita- 
rians. According to Dr. Worcester, then, the guilt 
of these false and horrid peculiarities lies at their 
door. They esteem " errour no crime," and " belief 
of the truth no virtue." The old fashioned Cal- 
vinists of New- York, however, have been more care- 
ful to " purge themselves from this guilt." The 
clergy of that city have almost without exception 
united in publick declarations, that Hopkinsianism, 
" is at war with the philosophy of the human mind, 
with common sense, and with the word of the living 
God, Such sentiments, in whatever connexion they 
may be taught, by whatever names they may be re- 



21 

commended, ought to be exposed and reprobated in 
the most decided manner." " They nothing doubt 
that christians, upon sober research, will find Hop- 
kinsianism to be in some very material points 
< another gospel' indeed." " By whatever name 
or title they, i.e. Hopkinsians, may be distinguished, 
they have departed, in many points, from the confes- 
sions of faith and the form of sound words adopted 
by the reformed churches, and it is time they were 
Jcnown, and a line of distinction drawn." " It 
is a duty of all the Lord's people to contend ear- 
nestly for the faith. It is especially incumbent on 
those who are set for the defence of the gospel, to 
descry approaching danger, and should an angel 
from heaven preach another gospel to denounce and 
resist him." " These writers," i. e. Hopkinsian, 
"have gained a reputation far beyond what nonsense 
and impiety should acquire for a divine." " They are 
preparing the way for a more extensive diffusion of 
infidel principles and even of atheism in our country." 
See the recommendations prefixed to Ely's contrast 
between Calvinism and Hopkinsianism by Dr. Smith, 
Dr. Romeyn, Dr. Mason, Dr. Livingston, &c. &c. 
It seems, then, that others, as well as Dr. Worcester, 
claim the privilege of sitting in judgment on their 
brethren. The measure he would mete to others, is 
ready to be measured to himself again, and it is very 
possible, that with all his orthodoxy he may soon 
suffer under the very same sentence, which he passes 
so rashly on one third of the clergy of this state. 
Such are the first fruits of a faith, which works by 
uncharitableness and not by love. 



23 

But Dr. Worcester has not merely aimed to mak& 
our sentiments odious. I would to God, that he had 
stopped here. He has openly taken part with those 
who insist, that on account of our sentiments we 
ought to be denied Christian fellowship, and to be 
driven from the church as unworthy the christian 
name. This is infinitely the; most important part of 
Dr. Worcester's letter. All the rest is compara- 
tively trifling. I exceedingly regret that Dr. Wor- 
cester has not brought this subject fully and fairly 
before the publick. He has mixed together topicks, 
which ought not to be confounded, and has thus, I 
trust unintentionally, blinded his reader. His 
readers will imagine, that the separation to which 
Unitarians object on the part of Trinitarians is no- 
thing more than the separation which Dr. Worcester 
gays has been made by Unitarians themselves in 
England, a separation in worship, a separation pro- 
duced by the adoption of prayers, hymns and doxo- 
logies accommodated to their peculiar sentiments. 
This view of the subject has given Dr. Worcester 
afield for his powers of humour and sarcasm. But 
ihis is not the true question. No. No. It is some- 
thing more solemn than this. The question is this, 
Whether those persons, who cannot receive as a 
truth of revelation the doctrine that the one God is 
three distinct persons, shall be denied christian 
fellowship, or in other words, shall be denied the 
name and privileges of Christians. This was the 
proposition of the Reviewer, and with the sincerest 
sorrow I find that to this Dr. Worcester accedes. 



23 

To him I did look for a healing spirit, for an exam- 
ple of forbearance, and moderation. But he has 
solemnly and publickly given all his influence to the 
opinion, that we and all who agree with us on the 
subject of the Trinity are to be disowned by the 
church of Christ. The obvious import of the con- 
cluding part of his letter (and it is the obvious iinporf, 
and not a strained and circuitous interpretation which 
I regard) may be thus expressed. " Every man 
who cannot admit as a doctrine of Scripture, the 
great doctrine of three persons in one God, which I 
and other orthodox Christians embrace, believes an 
opposite gospel, rejects the true gospel, despises the 
authority of Jesus Christ, is of course a man wholly 
wanting in true piety and without christian virtue; and 
may in perfect consistency with christian love be re- 
jected as unworthy the name of a christian." I confess 
I do shudder at hearing from a frail and fallible crea- 
ture this tremendous sentence passed on men of the 
profoundest understandings, of the purest lives, and 
of unwearied devotion to the study of God's word ; 
and passed on these men, because they cannot receive 
a doctrine, which bears the strongest marks of incon- 
sistency with that fundamental truth of all religion, 
the unity of God, and which for ages has perplexed 
and distressed the mind of almost every reflecting 
christian. Was Dr. Worcester sensible of the 
solemn responsibility which he took on himself, 
when he advanced the sentiments in the close of his 
letter ? Is he confident that no Antitrinitarians are 
pious men ? Is he sure that he has not been labour- 



24 

ing to drive from the christian fold the friends of 
Jesus and the heirs of salvation ? 

Before Dr. Worcester took so solemnly this ground, 
it became him to inquire most seriously into the doc- 
trine of three persons being one God, to weigh well the 
arguments of those who oppose it, and to observe with 
candour their tempers and lives. Nothing but the deep- 
est and most deliberate conviction that this doctrine 
of the trinity is indisputably true, that it is accompa- 
nied by evidence which renders the disbelief of it 
inexcusable, and that the scriptures insist upon it as 
an indispensable mark of a true believer, could have 
justified him in condemning as strangers to christian 
virtue men of established integrity, who profess with 
seriousness to revere the Saviour, and to make 
his instruction the rule of their faith and practice. I 
appeal to the conscience of Dr. Worcester, and I 
beseech him to ask himself with sincerity, whether 
he possesses this deep conviction, and whether it is 
the result of calm, patient and extensive research. 
If he shall answer in the affirmative, I then re- 
spectfully call upon him in the name of those on 
whom he has shut the door of the christian church, 
to " produce his reasons," to shew the ground of 
his confident persuasion that this doctrine is un- 
doubtedly true, and that the Scriptures demand the 
acknowledgment of it as necessary to the character 
of a pious christian. I also beg him to state with 
all possible precision, what particular view of the 
trinity it is necessary for us to receive in order to 
salvation, and in what language our faith must be 



expressed. I do not ask him to discuss these points 
in a letter to me or to any opponent. The con- 
troversy is not to be despatched in a few pages, 
nor ought it to be mingled with any personalities. 
Let it take another form, the form of general dis- 
cussion. I promise Dr. Worcester that his argu- 
ments shall be seriously weighed, and I trust that 
those on whom he has past the sentence of 
exclusion will not be backward to defend what 
they deem the truth, or to vindicate their claim to 
the name of christians. 

The principal argument which Dr. Worcester of- 
fers in favour of the proposed separation is, the great- 
ness of the differences between Trinitarians and Uni- 
tarians. I sincerely regret that these differences are so 
studiously magnified, whilst the points of agreement 
(between these classes of Christians are studiously over- 
looked. Dr. Watts and Dr. Doddridge have left us 
a better example. Trinitarians and Unitarians both 
believe in one God, one infinite and self- existent 
mind. According to the first, this God is three per- 
sons ; according to the last, he is one person. Ought 
this difference, which relates to the obscurest of all 
subjects, to the essence and metaphysical nature of 
God, and which common christians cannot under- 
stand, to divide and alienate those who ascribe to this 
one God the same perfections, who praise him for the 
same blessings, who hope from his mercy the same 
forgiveness, who receive on his authority the 
same commands, and who labour to maintain the 
same spirit of devotion to his will and glory. — Ac- 
4 



26 

cording to Trinitarians, Jesus, who suffered and died 
on the cross, is a derived being, personally united 
with the self- existent God. According to the Unita- 
rians, he is a derived being, intimately united with 
the self- existent God. Ought this difference, which 
transcends the conception of common christians, to 
divide and alienate those, who love the same excel- 
lent character in Jesus Christ ; who desire to breathe 
his spirit and follow his steps ; who confide in him, 
as perfectly adapted to the work which he was sent 
to accomplish ; and who labour to derive just con- 
ceptions of his nature from his own instructions? The 
differences between Trinitarians and Unitarians are 
very often verbal. As soon as Trinitarians attempt to 
shew the consistency of their doctrine of three persons 
with the divine unity, their peculiarities begin to van- 
ish, and in many of their writings little or nothing is 
left but one God acting in three characters, or 
sustaining three relations, and intimately united with 
his son Jesus Christ. Ought distinctions so subtle 
and perplexing, to separate those, who love the same 
divine character, and respect the same divine will. 

Dr. Worcester, however, seems disposed to widen 
the breach between these classes of believers. He 
says, the Saviour u whom you acknowledge, is infin- 
itely inferiour to ours." I answer — we believe that 
GOD saves us by his son Jesus Christ, in whom he 
dwells, and through whom he bestows pardon and 
eternal life. A higher Saviour we do not know, and 
cannot conceive. But Dr. Worcester does not stop 
here. He says, " The God whom you worship is 



27 

different from ours." To this I answer, as others 
have answered before, that I with my brethren 
worship " the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and 
of Jacob, who hath glorified his son Jesus," 
whom Peter preached, Acts iii. We worship 
"the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," 
to whom Paul " bowed the knee." We worship 
that God, whom Jesus in his last moments worship- 
ped, when he said, " Father, into thy hands I com- 
mend my spirit." We worship that God, to whom 
our Lord directed us, when he put into our lips ' 
these affecting words, " Our Father, who art in 
Heaven." We worship that God, of whom our 
master spoke in these memorable words, "the hour 
cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall 
worship the Father in spirit and in truth." Dr. 
Worcester speaks of a different God ; but we can 
renounce ours for no other. This worship we are 
persuaded, is a spring of purity, joy and hope, 
and we trust that it will prove to us a source of 
unfailing consolation amidst the trials, reproaches 
and rude * assaults of the world. But I must stop. 
The points of dispute between Unitarians and Tri- 
nitarians cannot be treated with any fairness within 
the narrow compass of a pamphlet, and I wish not 
to discuss them in connexion with the present con- 
troversy, which primarily relates to the moral cha- 
racter of the great body of liberal christians. 

Dr. Worcester has laboured to shew, that charity, 
instead of forbidding, encourages and requires Trini- 
tarians to exclude Unitarians from christian fellow- 



28 

ship, because charity commands us to promote truth, 
and truth is promoted by this system of exclusion. 
But let me ask, why is truth to be promoted? Not 
for its own sake, but for its influence on the heart, its 
influence in forming a christian temper. In what 
then does this temper consist ? very much in candour, 
forbearance and kind affection. It follows, that any 
method of promoting truth which is unfriendly to 
these virtues is unchristian : it sacrifices the end 
to the means of religion. Now let me ask, whether 
the practice of rejecting as ungodly men those, who 
differ from us on subtle, perplexing, and almost (if 
not altogether) unintelligible doctrines, be not obvi- 
ously and directly opposed to the exercise aud dif- 
fusion of candour, forbearance, kind affection and 
peace. Has it not actually convulsed the church for 
ages with discord and war ? The right of denoun- 
cing those who differ on such doctrines, if granted to 
one christian, must be granted to all ; and do we 
need the spirit of prophecy to foretell the consequen- 
ces, if the ignorant, passionate aud enthnsiastick, 
who form the majority of every community, shall 
undertake to carry this right into practice ? The idea, 
that a religion which is designed for weak and falli- 
ble mortals of all classes and capacities, and which 
is designed to promote unity, peace, candour, and 
love, should yet make it our duty to reject as wholly 
€lestitutc of gooduess, every man, however uuiform 
in conduct, who cannot see as we do on points where 
we ourselves see little or nothing, appears to me the 
grossest contradiction and absurdity. If this be 



29 

ehristianity, we may say any thing of our religion 
more truly, than that it is a religion of peace. A 
more effectual instrument of discord was nevGr de v 
vised. Charity then does not command the Trinita- 
ria to exclude his Unitarian brother. Charity 
commands us to use mildness and persuasion ; to open 
our eyes to the marks of virtue in those from whom 
we differ ; to beware of ascribing errour to a corrupt 
heart, unless the proof be striking ; to think modestly 
of ourselves, and to drive from our minds the conceit 
of infallibility, that most dangerous errour which ever 
erept into the church of Christ. 

I have now finished my examination of the princi- 
pal parts of Dr. Worcester's letter. There is one 
general remark to be applied to the whole. It does 
not appear, no, not in a single line, that Dr. Wor- 
cester ever brought home to himself the case of his 
injured brethren, ever imagined himself in their situ- 
ation, and inquired how, under such circumstances, 
he would himself have felt and acted. Suppose for 
example, that in the Christian Disciple a review had 
appeared, solemnly charging on that class of minis- 
ters to which Dr. Worcester belongs, sentiments 
which they generally disapprove, and charging them 
with propagating these sentiments by artifice and 
base hypocrisy. Would no sensibility have been 
excited ? Would not Dr. Worcester have regarded 
the author of this Review with strong indignation ? 
Suppose then that Dr. Worcester, impelled not 
merely by a regard to his own usefulness, but by 
friendship, by christian affection, by a regard to 



30 

what he believed the interests of the church, had 
written such a letter as mine to Mr. Thacher ; and 
suppose that I, after reading this letter, had come 
before the publick, and without one expression of 
sympathy towards Dr. Worcester and his brethren, 
had attempted to uphold the Reviewer, and had even 
declared, that the large body of christians condemned 
by that writer were virtually enemies to Christ, with- 
out piety and without hope. What would Dr. Wor- 
cester have felt ? Might he not, in an unguarded 
moment, in the warmth of virtuous indignation, have 
called me a defamer ? Would he not have said, 
that I was aiming a blow at what was dearer to him 
than life, at his christian character, and his usefulness 
as a christian minister ? Now I ask, would this 
conduct have been a crime in me, and is it a virtue 
in Dr. Worcester ? Let that gentleman bring the 
case home to himself, and he may view his letter 
with less complacency than he now does. He cer- 
tainly will not wonder at the feeling which I have 
expressed, or think me instigated by the worst of 
passions in the remarks which I now offer to the 
publick. 

I now bid farewell to this controversy, as I hope, 
for ever. This I do, not because I hope to escape 
reproach by silence, for I know that the full measure 
of reproach is prepared for me ; not because I shrink 
in any degree from the cause which I have laboured 
to defend ; but because I fear, that a controversy of 
this nature between christian ministers will produce 
impressions unfavourable to the cause of piety; be- 



31 

cause I believe, that it tends to awaken unfriendly 
feelings in the community, and that it ought there- 
fore to cease as soon as the interests of truth will 
admit ; because I fear, from observations on my own 
heart, that it is not favourable to the best affections 
in those who are immediately engaged in it ; be- 
cause I am persuaded, that it will never end, if I 
resolve to answer every new pamphlet and every 
fresh charge ; because a continuance of it will be 
inconsistent with the regular duties of my profession, 
and with more useful pursuits 5 and lastly, because 
the most important topicks in the controversy cannot 
be thoroughly and fairly discussed in the form of 
short publications abounding in personalities. — I jpo- 
willing to relinquish the privilege of saying the k n § 
word, and shall of course be condemned by those, wh ' 
consider the last word as a sign of victory. With 
respect to the direction, which the publick mind will 
take on this subject, it is not easy for a man of retired 
habits and of very limited connexions to determine. 
To God I cheerfully leave the event. Believing in 
his providence, assured that the gospel is his care, 
and looking forward to his promised kingdom, where 
the animosities, reproaches, divisions, and poor 
contentions of this world will never enter, I desire 
and hope to maintain in every condition an equal 
mind, and to attain some portion of that peace which, 
as men cannot give, so they cannot take away. 



NOTE. 



In the preceding remarks I have wished to observe some- 
thing like method, and to hold the attention of the reader to the 
great points of the controversy. For this reason, and I hope for 
a still better reason, I have passed over several of Dr. Worces- 
ter's courteous sarcasms, minute criticisms, and appeals to po- 
pular feeling. But there are some particulars, not undeserving 
attention, which were excluded by the order which I proposed, 
and which I have therefore reserved for a note. 

I did not notice Dr. Worcester's criticisms on my interpreta- 
tion of the Review, because I have not met a single individual, 
who has expressed one doubt as to the import and design of 
that publication. But there is one of Dr. Worcester's criticisms 
which ought not to be overlooked. I refer to the attempt 
which he has made to defend the Reviewer from the charge o£ 
a very criminal mutilation of Mr. Wells' letter. If the reader 
will turn to my letter to Mr. Thacher, page 12, he will see the 
mutilation stated at length. Dr. Worcester alleges, that the 
passage was varied by the Reviewer, merely that it might be 
inserted conveniently in a list of encomiums, passed by Mr. 
Wells on liberal gentlemen. To this defence I reply, first, 
that the mutilated part of the passage, as it stands in the Review, 
is not an encomium, and could not have been introduced as 
possessing that character. In the next, place, it is very singular, 
that the passage could not have been properly " shaped," with- 
out excluding those words which most forcibly vindicate the 
5 



Boston ministers from the eharge of concealment. But thirdly, 
it is still more remarkable, that the passage could not have 
been properly shaped without printing the last clause in italicks, 
a clause which, when thus printed, entirely changes the mean- 
ing of the sentence. How these italicks help to give the right 
shape to the quotation, is not obvious to a common reader, nor 
has Dr. Worcester thought proper to inform us. 

Dr. Worcester asserts that I " claim all charity" for myself 
and my friends, and " deny it all" to our opponents, and thus- 
" deny that they have true religion." God forbid. If any part 
of my letter is marked by this exclusive spirit, I ask for- 
giveness of my injured fellow christians. I did think that I 
expressed a very opposite temper. I certainly felt it. 

Dr. Worcester says that I have given a very distorted view 
of Calvinism. I should rejoice to think so. It is a painful 
thought, that such dishonourable views of our merciful Father 
in heaven, as I have ascribed to that system, should find admis- 
sion into a single human mind. I represented Calvinism, how- 
ever, precisely as I had been accustomed to understand it ; and, 
what is more, since reading Dr. Worcester's letter, I have con- 
sulted Miss Adams' " View of Religions," to correct my errours 
on the subject ; but still I am met by the same heart-chilling 
doctrines ; Calvinism still wears the same frowning aspect ; still 
seems to me a dreadful corruption of true Christianity. That 
my letter contains any reflections on Calvimsts, as Dr. Worces- 
ter intimates, cannot be true. I indeed think that, as a class, 
they have defects which may be traced to their system ; and 
some of their number seem to love none of the principles of 
Geneva so well as those which lighted the flames for Servetus. 
But as a body I have always regarded them with respect, and 
it has been my happiness to witness among them very bright 
examples of christian virtue. If Dr. Worcester shall ask, how 
characters so excellent can have grown up under so corrupt a 
system, I will answer him, when he can explain how a Fene- 
lon and a Pascal were formed in the most corrupt church in, 
Christendom. 



35 

Dr. Worcester says that I have unjustly represented Dr, 
Watts as a Unitarian. I hope that Dr. Worcester does not 
mean to avail himself of an ambiguous word. Does he mean 
to deny that Dr. Watts was an Antitrinitarian, that he rejected 
the doctrine of three distinct persons in God ? Dr. Watts be- 
lieved, that the Holy Spirit was not a divine person distinct 
from the Father, but the active power of God, to which per- 
sonal properties were figuratively ascribed in Scripture. That at 
.east I have always regarded as his opinion ; and if so, owe of 
the three persons has certainly disappeared from his system. 
Dr. Watts, indeed, believed that Jesus was properly a divine 
person, and he often speaks of him as God-man. But he be- 
lieved that this divine person had a beginning, and was formed 
by the union of the Father with the human soul of Jesus ; and 
still more, he believed that Jesus was divine, because the 
Fatlier and not a second divine person dwelt in him ; in other 
words, Jesus Christ, according to this system, is to be acknow- 
ledged as the supreme God, because he is the Father himself 
united with a human soul ; all his divinity is derived from the 
indwelling Father. Have we here then a second divine person, 
distinct from the Father, yet equal with him in etetnity and every 
other glory ? This view of Dr. Watts' system is confirmed by 
his particular friend Dr. Doddridge who has given substan- 
tially the same account in his lectures ; and by Dr. Samuel 
Palmer, the disciple and admirer of Dr. Watts. I have not one 
doubt, that Dr. Watts was a Unitarian, in the sense of believing 
that God is one person, in opposition to the Trinitarian doctrine 
of three persons, a doctrine which he calls a " strange and per- 
plexing notion." Dr. Worcester says, that my assertions re- 
specting Dr. Watts are bolder than Mr. Belsham dared to make. 
Mr. Belsham's assertions, which Dr. Worcester pronounces 
more cautious than mine, related to a very different point from 
that which I maintained. Mr. Belsham was anxious to prove, 
not that Dr. Watts was a Unitarian in the broad sense of that 
word, but a believer in the simple humanity of Jesus Christ 
Did not Dr. Worcester know this fact ? and was he ingenuous 
in ascribing to me greater boldness than to Mr. Belsham, whe» 
our objects were entirely different ? 



36 

With respect to Dr. Barnard, I have satisfactory proof that he 
believed God to be one person, and was accordingly a Unitarian. 
From his language respecting the " essential divinity of Jesus 
Christ," I infer that he accorded in some degree with Dr. Watts 
or Sabellius. He did not believe the Son to be a divine person, 
distinct from the Father, and possessing equal divinity. His 
views on these subjects, like those of many good men, were not 
very precise. Had he been obliged to select a system, it would 
have been Dr. Samuel Clarke's* The same remarks may be 
applied to President Willard. 

Dr. Worcester speaks of my " denunciation" of the Pano- 
plist. I did not refer, a« the connexion will shew, to the 
general discussions and statements of that work, of which I know 
very little ; but to its representations of the views and character 
of liberal christians. On this point I have the same conviction 
as before, that the Panoplist is entitled to no credit. 

Dr. Worcester has quoted for my benefit the following text of 
scripture, " There shall be false teachers among you, who priv- 
ily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord 
who bought them." Dr. Worcester says, that this language 
may " sound harsh and unfashionable," and he " trusts" that I 
" will have the goodness not to impute to him the fault." Sar- 
castick compliments seem to me not to belong to so serious a sub- 
ject. Trifling here is quite out of place. I ask Dr. Worcester's 
attention to this passage as rendered according to Dr. Camp- 
bell. " There shall be false teachers among j^ou, who shall 
privily bring in destructive sects, or divisions, denying or renoun- 
cing the Lord who bought them." Believing as I do, that the 
gospel is characterized by a benevolent and pacifick spirit, 
and that the Lord has bought us for this very end, that we 
should serve him in love, I cannot conceive of a surer mark of 
a false teacher of the gospel, than the introduction of destructive 
divisions into the church, and I am persuaded that one method 
of denying or renouncing the Lord is, to divide his followers, 
and to oppose the spirit of charity and peace. I shall not in- 
sult Dr. Worcester by asking him to " have the goodness not 
to impute to me the fault of this unpleasant and unfashionable" 



37 

comment, but I recommend it to his serious attention. I mean 
not, however, to intimate that any teachers of the present day 
are to be placed on a level with the false teachers condemned 
in this passage. These, as appears from the whole chapter,* 
were monsters of iniquity, covetous, lewd, adulterers, seditious, 
slanderous, given up to the basest lusts. They excited divi- 
sions for mercenary purposes, and built up a sect by encourag- 
ing lasciviousness and the grossest sensuality. Thank God, 
this race has passed away, and I could not without great guilt 
confound with them any class of ministers with whom I am 
acquainted. I believe that the fomenters of division among 
us are generally actuated by an injudicious zeal, by passions 
which they mistake for piety, and by prejudices which are 
reconcilable with a regard to God and duty, not by the motives 
which governed the profligate wretches referred to in the text. 

It is one of my great offences with Dr. Worcester that I " put 
in my earnest plea" for the christian character of those, who be* 
lieve in the " simple humanity of Jesus Christ." It is some con- 
solation to me, that I have the excellent Dr. Doddridge as a part- 
ner in this guilt. The name of Dr. Lardner is I presume familiar 
to most of my readers. No man in modern times has rendered 
greater service to the cause of Christianity. Dr. Lardner was 
a decided believer in the simple humanity of Jesus. Having 
published a volume of Practical Sermons, he sent them to Dr. 
Doddridge, who acknowledged the favour in a letter, from 
which the following extracts are made. " I esteem the valua- 
" ble present you were so good as to send me, as a memorial of 
" the learned, pious and generous author." " Be assured that 
" though I am not able to express it as I would, I do actually 
" feel a deep and constant sense of your goodness to me, and, 
" which is much more, of your continual readiness to serve the 
" publick with those distinguished abilities which God has been 
" pleased to give you, and which have rendered your writings 
" so great a blessing to the christian world. And I heartily 
" pray that they may be yet more abundantly so, for promoting 

* 2 Pet. ii. 



38 

* the cause of piety and virtue, of christian principles, and a 
-" christian temper. In the interpretation of particular texts 
" and the manner of stating particular doctrines, good men and 
" good friends may have different apprehensions ; but you 
" always propose your sentiments with such good humour, mo- 
" desty, candour and frankness, as is very amiable and exem- 
" plary ; and the grand desire of spreading righteousness, bene- 
" volence, prudence, the fear of God, and a heavenly temper 
" and conversation, so plainly appears, particularly in this 
" volume of sermons, that were I a much stricter Calvinist than 
" I am, I should love and honour the author, though I did, not 
" personally know him." Such was the language of Doddridge, 
a " disciple whom Jesus loved,"" to the excellent Lardner. 
Blessed be God, who in every age raises up witnesses to the 
true spirit of Christianity, and who opposes such examples as 
that of Doddridge to the narrow, exclusive and uncharitable 
spirit of the world. 

I will conclude this note with earnestly desiring christians 
to obtain, if possible, some accurate ideas of the most important 
point in the present controversy. Let them learn the distinc- 
tion between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism. Many use 
these words without meaning, and are very zealous about 
rounds. Some suppose that Trinitarianism consists in believ- 
ing in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But we all 
believe in these ; we all believe that the Father sent the Son, 
and gives to those that ask, the Holy Spirit. We are all Trini- 
tarians, if this belief is Trinitarianism. But it is not. The 
Trinitarian believes that the One God is three distinct persons, 
called Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; and he believes that 
each of these persons is equal to the other two in every perfec- 
tion, that each is the only true God, and yet that the three are 
ouly one God. This is Trinitarianism. The Unitarian be- 
lieves that there is but one person possessing supreme divinity, 
even the Father. This is the great distinction ; let it be kept 
steadily in view. — Some christians have still more vague ideas 
on this subject. They suppose that Trinitarians think highly 
<»f Jesus Christ; whilst Unitarians form low ideas of him, hardly 



39 

tanking him above common men, and therefore they choose to 
be Trinitarians. This is a great errour. Some Unitarians be- 
lieve that the Father is so intimately united with Jesus Christ, 
that it is proper, on account of this union, to ascribe divine 
honour and titles to Jesus Christ. Some Unitarians deny that 
Jesus is a creature, and affirm that he is properly the Son of 
God, possessing a divine nature derived from the Father. Some 
Unitarians, who assert that Jesus is a creature, maintain that 
he is literally the first-born of the creation, the first production 
of God, the instrumental cause by whom God created all other 
beings, and the most exalted being in the universe, with the 
single exception of the infinite Father. I am persuaded, that 
under these classes of high Unitarians many christians ought 
to be ranked who call themselves orthodox and Trinitarians. 
In fact, as the word Trinity is sometimes used, we all believe 
it. It is time that this word was better defined. Christians 
ought not to be separated by a sound. A doctrine which we 
are called to believe, as we value our souls and our standing in 
the church, ought to be stated with a precision which can- 
not be misunderstood. By the Trinity, I have all along 
understood the doctrine, that God is three persons. If it do not 
mean this, it means nothing, and those christians who take 
shelter under this word, without adopting this sentiment, are 
acting, I fear, a dishonest and ungenerous part. They distin- 
guish themselves by a name from christians with whom they 
substantially agree, and whom they are bound to honour and 
love as brethren. To those persons, who wish to understand 
better the nature of the Trinitarian controversy, I would recom- 
mend D r. Price's five " Sermons on the Christian Doctrine," 
and Rev. Noah Worcester's three Tracts called the Trinita- 
rian Review. This subject has of late been ably discussed in 
a " Reply to Wardlaw's Discourses," by Rev. James Yates of 
Glasgow, Scotland. " Prove all things ; hold fast that which is 
sood." 



SECOND LETTER 



REV. WILLIAM E. CHANNING, 



OIT THE SUBJECT QE 



UNITARIANISM. 



BY SAMUEL WORCESTER, D. D, 

PASTOR OF THE TABERXACLE CHURCH, SALEM. 



THIRD EDITION, 



BOSTON: 

SRINTED BY SAMUEL T. ARMSTRONG, SO. $0, CDRJTWU. 
1815. 



JLETTER. 



BEV. AND DEAR SIR, 

A REASON of my choosing to communicate my thoughts, 
on your Letter to the Rev. Mr. Thacher, in a Letter ad- 
dressed to you, rather than present them to the publick in 
any other form, was, that I bore towards you very sincere 
affection and respect, and wished, while performing a most 
painful duty, assiduously to preserve and cherish these sen- 
timents. In this disposition I was careful that you should 
receive a copy of the Letter, accompanied with a note of fra- 
ternal courtesy, before the pamphlet was published for sale. 
Though I have not met with reciprocal attention in either of 
these respects, and have only found, at the Bookseller's, 
"Remarks" on my Letter, addressed "to the publick;" yet, 
animated still with the same sentiments as at first, and im- 
pressed with some new considerations, I choose to address 
what I have to offer in reply to your Remarks, in a second 
letter to you. 

There are cases in which a fair statement of the truth, 
even with the kindest spirit and in the mildest terms, will 
almost certainly be considered by those on whom it bears, as 
severe if not bitter. This infelicity I deeply felt when writ- 
ing before, and now, I can assure you, not less deeply feel. 
I sincerely regret the necessity of exhibiting truths, which 
will be painful to you; and it will be my care not to render 
them additionally painful, by any asperity or unfairness in 
the manner of exhibiting them, I find that your Remarks 
are almost entirely personal; but in replying to these "per- 
sonalities," it will be no object with me to "defend myself," 
any further than seems necessary for the vindication of the 
cause which I espouse. My earnest desire is, that attention 
may be fixed, not upon me or upon you, but upon the im- 
portant questions of general concern in discussion betwee* 



its. These questions merit attention; and neither we, nor 
others on either side, ought to he weary of attending to them, 
until they he well understood, and correctly decided. 

In reading your Remarks, my first care was to find, if you 
had made it appear that I had, in any instance, misappre- 
hended or misrepresented you, or done injustice to you or to 
others. In two or three instances you intimate that I have 
misrepresented you, and in three or four that I have wronged 
you by unjust imputation. To these I will briefly attend. 

I stated that "in the terms of your creed," as given in 
your Letter, there is "a great want of clearness and preci- 
sion; great indistinctness and ambiguity." You "deny" the 
correctness of this representation. I have deliberately re- 
examined the subject, and my views of it remain unaltered. 
It was not because your "statement," or creed, did not "meet 
and answer every question which may possibly be started in 
relation to your sentiments," that I pronounced it indistinct 
and ambiguous; but because, as I attempted to shew, it was 
not clear and unequivocal upon the points most directly in 
question: and I am perfectly content to submit it to the judg- 
ment of candid men on either side, who will attentively read 
what you have written and what I have written, whether in 
this instance I am guilty of misrepresentation. To them 
also I would refer, whether, as I have never been charged 
with concealing my sentiments, I am open to the "reproach, 
in turn," of ambiguity and indistinctness, in regard to any 
statements which I made, or which it was incumbent on me 
to make. 

You seem to intimate, p. 8, that I have misrepresented 
your account of the manner in which you and your liberal 
brethren perform your ministry. This also I have reexam- 
ined: and only desire that my representation and argument 
may be fairly compared with your statement, and with the 
general, notorious, and undisputed facts to which I referred. 

You say, p. 12, "I refer to his insinuation, that we have 
adopted a style of preaching opposed to that of the apostles, 

BECAUSE WE WISH TO AVOID THE SUFFERINGS WHICH THOSE 
HOLY MEN ENCOUNTERED, AND WISH TO SECURE THE FAVOUR 

*>f the world." — I did indeed suppose that "the favour of 



$he world" which you enjoy, and of which you speak in your 
Letter with so much complacency, was to he attributed, at 
least in part, to "a style of preaching" widely different from 
that of the apostles. But that you have adopted this style 
for the sake of such a boon, I have no where "insinuated." 
Throughout my Letter, I studiously confined myself to the 
statement and suggestion of facts and principles in "lan- 
guage" which you acknowledge to be "sufficiently soft and 
guarded," and without arraigning or impeaching, in a single 
instance, intentions or motives. Had you duly attended to 
this character of my Letter, you would have spared yourself 
the pain of many of your remarks. — And here, Sir, I enter 
my protest against the "rule" of construction which you have 
professedly adopted, and according to which you seem to 
think it right to assume the "impression," which any writings 
happen to make, as the criterion of their real meaning. 

P. 15, you quote from my Letter the following passage: 
"You doubtless will not hesitate to acknowledge what I have 
certainly very great sorrow in stating, that the doctrines of 
atonement by Christ's death, and justification through faith in 
his blood, as held by orthodox christians in all ages of the 
church, — at once fall to the ground before you." Upon this 
you exclaim, "Astonishing assertion!" — "What! does Dr. 
Worcester really believe that I will acknowledge without 
hesitation, that I reject these or any other doctrines, as they 
were held by orthodox christians in the age of Christ 
and his apostles, or as held by orthodox christians in any 
age oftlie church," Really, Sir, I did rely on your candour, 
that you would not refuse to me the common and established 
use of the word orthodox, and that you would not, by giv- 
ing to this word a different sense, evade a notorious matter 
of fact, and avoid an ingenuous concession. Admit the word 
orthodox in its general acceptation, and in the sense in which 
you must have understood me to use it; and I am still confi- 
dent you will not deny what I supposed you would not hesitate 
to acknowledge. 

In this connexion you say, "Before leaving this head, I 
would protest against Dr. Worcester's habit of fastening on 
his opponents the consequences which seem to him to follow 



from their system. This practice is unfair and injurious." I 
am not conscious of this "habit." I do not think it right for 
any one to fasten upon his opponents the consequences which 
seem to him to follow from their system; when they them- 
selves disavow those consequences, or do not generally admit 
them. Against such a practice, I would cordially join with 
you in the most earnest and decided "protest." But the pres- 
ent is a very different case. It is a well known fact, that 
those who deny the essential divinity of Jesus Christ, do also 
generally, if not universally, deny the doctrines of atonement 
and justification by faith, as held by orthodox^ christians. 
Your reference to Dr. Samuel Clark and to Bible News is 
utterly irrelevant. Dr. Clark did not deny the essential di- 
vinity or the eternal existence of the Son of God; and hence 
was not under the necessity of denying the doctrine of atone- 
ment. Though, nevertheless, I believe Dr. Clark's views of 
the Trinity erroneous, and to have been solidly refuted by 
Dr. Waterland; yet it is not with Dr. Clark, or with any who 
do not deny the essential Divinity of Jesus Christ, that I am 
concerned in the present discussion. My concern is with 
those who hold Jesus Christ to be only a creature; whether 
they hold him to be "the first production of God, the most ex- 
alted being in the universe with the single exception of the 
infinite Father," or a mere man, fallible and peccable like 
other men. Whatever terms may be employed to set forth 
the dignity of Jesus Christ, and to represent him as being al- 
most equal to the supreme Father, it is nevertheless certain 
that, if he is only a creature, he is infinitely inferiour to the 
Father; and is no more to be compared with God, no more to 
be represented as approaching in dignity and glory to him, 
than any other creature, even man that is a worm. Before Him 
whose name is Jehovah all creatures are as nothing. This 
the highest holy creature will the most deeply feel, and, feel- 

*I still use this word in its common acceptation, to denote those christians, 
who hold the doctrines of Christ's true divinity, atonement for sin by his 
death, and justification by faith alone in him; in opposition to those who deny 
these doctrines, and whom I call Ufiitarians, not because 1 think them justly- 
entitled to appropriate this name, but because it is the name by which they 
choose to be ealled. 



ing this, would shudder at the ascription to him of the 
names, and titles, and honours ascribed to Jesus Christ. As 
it respects the doctrine of atonement then, and other evangel- 
ical doctrines connected with it, it matters not whether Jesus 
Christ be regarded as a mere man, or as a creature of super- 
angelick dignity. If he is a mere creature, whatever rank 
you choose to assign to him, his death could not have been of 
the nature, or of the meritorious efficacy of a propitiatory 
sacrifice for the sins of the world. It is therefore with per- 
fect consistency, and a matter "of course" and necessity, that 
those who hold him to be a mere creature, do actually deny 
the doctrines of atonement and justification, as held by ortho- 
dox christians. What, then, I "again and again intimate," 
is not a matter of mere inference, but a notorious matter of 
fact. 

But is it not remarkable, Sir, that in the very paragraph 
in which you protest against "fastening on opponents the 
consequences which seem to follow from their system," you 
should do the very thing against which you protest? You 
here assert, that "the system of the Trinitarians makes the 
sufferings of Jesus Christ nothing more than the sufferings 
of a man." Do you not know, Sir, that the Trinitarians 
decidedly deny this consequence? Do you .not know that 
they hold Jesus Christ to be God and man united in one 
person — that this one complex person suffered and died, — and 
that his death had all the importance, all the merit, all the 
efficacy, which could he derived to it from the infinite dignity 
of such a person? He who was in the form or God, 

AND THOUGHT IT NO ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD 

was made in the likeness of man, and being found in fashion 
as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto 

DEATH, EVEN THE DEATH OF THE CROSS. How Could >OU 

then say, that our "system makes the sufferings of Jesus 
Christ nothing more than the sufferings of a man?" 

To several very solemn quotations of scripture, in my 
former Letter, this remark is subjoined: "If this language 
sound harsh and unfashionable, I trust, Sir, you will have 
the goodness not to impute the fault to me; and that you will 
not on account of any unpleasantness in the language, refuse 



to give attention to the momentous sentiment contained in 
it." Of this you complain. The serious truth is, that I was 
so forcibly struck with those passages, in contrast with the 
language which we are accustomed to hear from your quarter, 
that it really occurred to me that such disgust would be ex- 
cited by them in the minds of readers of the liberal class, as 
would almost induce them to throw down the pamphlet and 
read no further: and I paused to deliberate whether it might 
not be expedient to suppress the quotations. It was under 
this impression that the remark was made. On reflection, 
however, after the Letter was published, and before I saw 
your reply, I was apprehensive, that, in this instance, I 
had conveyed an unjust imputation, and sincerely regretted 
that I had made the remark. When I found that you con- 
sidered it in this light, and were wounded by it, my regret 
was increased. I confess my fault in this particular; and 
devoutly wish that the remark could be obliterated from the 
Letter, and effaced from every mind. 

1 have now, I believe, noticed all the instances, in winch 
you have intimated that I am chargeable with misrepresen- 
tation, or unjust imputation; and with these brief remarks, I 
cheerfully submit them all to the candid and serious reconsid- 
eration of yourself and every reader. 

My next inquiry was, whether you had invalidated any of 
my "criticisms," statements, positions, or arguments: and 
after a very attentive examination and re-examination, you 
will permit me, dear Sir, to say, what I feel perfectly safe in 
saying, it is my deliberate judgment, and in it I have the con- 
currence of all with whom I have conversed on the subject, 
that you have not directly met me at a single point, shewn 
me to be incorrect in a single statement, nor refuted me in a 
single position or argument; and, in a word, that your 
Remarks are no real answer to my Letter. 

It becomes then an inquiry, by what means you have given 
to your Remarks the appearance and effect of an answer? For 
that they have with some this appearance and this effect, I do 
Bot doubt. This inquiry, though a delicate and unpleasant 
<me, justice to the cause of truth forbids me to decline. 



In the first place, you have imputed to me a bad spirit and 
intention. With this you begin, and with this you end; and 
in this, I believe, the effective force of your Remarks mainly 
lies. Were no bad spirit or intention imputed to me, I pre- 
sume no person would suppose my Letter to have been an- 
swered. But with persons who allow their feelings and pas- 
sions, instead of reason, and conscience, and scripture, to de- 
cide upon the controversy, this imputation has all the effect of 
the most victorious argument. 

My Letter, you say, "though milder in language, breaths 
too much of the spirit of the review." The spirit of 
the Review you have represented, in your Letter to Mr. 
Thacher, as being a spirit of "falsehood," "unfairness," 
"disingenuousness," "uncharitableness," "illiberality," "cen- 
soriousness," "insult," "bitterness," "malignity," "pride," 
"cruelty," "fury," "denunciation," "heresy," and "awful 
temerity." It was by imputing this spirit to the Reviewer, 
that you roused the passions of your party into a flame. 
And now you impute to me the same spirit — whether in equal 
measure you do not say. It was easy, Sir, if nothing in the 
breast rendered it difficult, to make this imputation: but it 
ought not to have been made without proof — clear, substantial 
proof. Had you convicted me of such a spirit, though it 
Would not have been a refutation of my Letter, yet it would 
have fixed on me an indispensable obligation to humble my- 
self before you, before the world, and above all before Him 
whose servant I profess to be. But you have offered no 
proof; and utterly unconscious as I am of having written 
with such a spirit, I confidently refer it to all candid judges 
— I humbly refer it to Him who judgeth righteously — wheth- 
er the imputation is not entirely gratuitous and unjust. 

Of my Letter you further say, "It is too obviously design- 
ed to drive both me and my brethren from the church and 
from the ministry." Could charity, Sir, neither discern nor 
imagine any other design than this? What other course should 
have been adopted, what other means should have been used, 
had one designed to "do what he could to convert his brethren 
from tlie errour of their ways, and thus to hide a multitude of 
sins? 



10 

You repeatedly speak of my " attempts to render your 
preaching and your sentiments odious;" and this you repre- 
sent to be one "great object of my Letter." This also 
plainly imports a malignant spirit and intention. But, Sir, 
in what way have I attempted to render your sentiments and 
preaching odious, excepting by a simple exhibition of them, 
without discolouring, distortion, or declamation, in contrast 
with those of orthodox ministers and of the apostles of Christ. 

In pp. 22 and 23, you make a representation of my spirit 
and intention, at which you "shudder," and at which you 
had reason to shudder. But that part of your Remarks I 
shall have occasion to consider in another place. 

Towards the close you have this passage: "It does not 
"appear, no, not in a single line, that Dr. Worcester ever 
"brought home to himself the case of his injured brethren, 
"ever imagined himself in their situation, and inquired how 
"under such circumstances he would himself have felt and 
"acted." Here I am represented as devoid of brotherly 
sympathy and feeling; and here is the consummation of that 
unchristian and malignant spirit, which is imputed to me 
from the beginning of your Remarks to the end. Sir, I 
have reason to sympathize with my brethren, whenever they 
are injured by attempts "to drive them from the ministry," 
or to deprive them of their comfort, their good name, or their 
usefulness; I have no occasion to "imagine myself in their 
situation;" and I should, indeed, be a monster of insensibili- 
ty, had I no tenderness of feeling for them. I have not for- 
gotten that I was once myself "driven" from a settlement, a 
church, and people, dear to my heart; driven, indeed, not by 
persecuting Calvinists, but by liberal men; yet not on that 
account entirely without pain. I have witnessed the suffer- 
ings of others in similar circumstances, and particularly of 
a beloved brother in your vicinity. If I have not been de- 
ceived, these painful scenes, while they have brought me 
pretty fully acquainted with the charity and liberality of the 
age, have had a salutary effect upon my feelings, and taught 
me how much it becomes the professed servants of Christ to 
treat their brethren with forbearance, kindness, tenderness, 
and undissembled good will. This lesson may I never forget — 



11 

never fail to practise towards all my brethren, however they 
may differ from me in opinion, and in whatever way I may 
be called in duty to bear testimony against their errours, or 
their proceedings. 

Your imputation to me of a bad spirit and design, I do 
not attribute to any particular unfriendliness to me. I at- 
tribute it to a general cause — to a general state of mind, and 
habit of thinking and feeling; and on this account I am in- 
duced to consider it with more particularity, than I should 
be willing to bestow on any thing merely personal. It is but 
too manifest that you and your liberal brethren are in the 
habit of regarding, and of representing and denouncing those 
who hold the sentiments which I espouse, as being possessed 
of a malignant spirit. And having been accustomed to wit- 
ness how completely the imputation of this spirit serves, with 
a large portion of people, instead of a thousand "proofs of 
holy writ" against us, you resort, it would seem habitually, 
and, I would hope, without any meditated intention to injure, 
to this convenient and effectual expedient. To what, if not 
to this habit, shall we attribute the frequent, and entirely un- 
necessary mention, both in your Letter and Remarks, of 
(Jalvinists;* and almost always with some insinuation, as if 
they above all men were sinners in the odious matter of 
persecution? 

But, Sir, is this charitable, is it candid, is it magnanimous, 
is it just? Was not Arius, the father of that class of Unitari- 
ans to which you yourself seem to belong, a violent perse- 
cutor? Was it not he and his followers, who, Jirst of all 
among professed christians, set the hideous and direful ex- 
ample of secularizing the discipline of the church, and perse- 
cuting their opponents to imprisonment, banishment, and death? 
And did they not crimson the whole Roman empire with the 
blood of Trinitarians? Did not Davides perish in prison, 

* The present controversy has no respect to points peculiarly Calvinistick. 
Arminius was as decided as Calvin on the doctrines of the Trinity in the Godhead, 
the entire corruption of human nature, atonement by the death of Christ, justi- 
fication by grace through faith in him, and moral renovation by the Holy Spirit. 
His system, it is true, was soon corrupted, and a mixture of Pelagianism and 
Socinianism came to be called Arminianism; but genuine Arminianism is n» 
Jfess directly in opposition, than Calvinism, to every species of Unitarianism. 



12 

under the unrelenting severity of the persecuting spirit of 
Faustus Socinus and his adherents, the founders of another 
class of Unitarians? Was it not by Archbishops Laud and 
Sheldon, the fathers in England of adulterated Arminianism, 
and of sentiments once called latitudinarian, now called lib- 
eral, that Calvinists were forbidden to preach on the "Five 
Points," — that two thousand ministers, confessedly the best 
in the kingdom, were "driven" from their parishes on St. 
Bartholomew's day, and persecuted with fines and imprison- 
ments, and some of them to death, — and that our Calvinis- 
tick forefathers were compelled to leave their native country, 
and seek an asylum in the American wilderness? In our own 
country and in our own age, who have shewn the most deter- 
mined spirit to "drive" their opponents from the ministry, 
by private exertions, by ecclesiastical proceedings, and by 
judicial decisions? And since the commencement of the pres- 
ent controversy, on which side, may I not ask, has there 
been most of wrath, and clamour, and evil speaking, among 
the people in the places of greatest excitement? 

I have no pleasure, Sir, in adverting to these deplorable 
facts; nor would I, for my life, mention them with the spirit 
and for the purpose of retaliation. I should deem it most un- 
christian, unjust, and injurious in me to reproach you and 
your liberal brethren* with the violent spirit of persecution, 
displayed by men of your sentiments in the days of other 
times, when ecclesiastical discipline was secularized, and 
confounded with judicial proceedings. I should deem myself 
a most unfair and ungenerous disputant, should I, in this 
discussion, endeavour to divert attention from the real points 
in debate, and to enlist passion and prejudice on my side, by 
a perpetual recurrence to such extraneous and odious facts. 
Persuaded as I am, that your feelings would revolt at the 
thought of acting over again the violent and bloody scenes of 
Arius or of Laud; I am no less full in the confidence, that you 
have no good reason to believe, or to insinuate, that your op- 
ponents would not revolt with equal horrour from every thing 
like "the flames lighted for Servetus." Such a belief, such 
an insinuation, permit me, dear Sir, to say, is unworthy of 
your enlightened mind, and your elevated standing; and could 



13 

never have found a place with you, hut for the unpropitious 
habit to which I have referred, and of which probably you 
have been too little conscious. 

Have we yet to learn, that the spirit of persecution is the 
©flspring, not of any particular system of religious sentiments, 
hut of that corruption of our fallen nature, which, if not sub- 
dued by divine grace, will exert itself against the true spirit 
of the gospel, sometimes in the form of a fiend of darkness, 
sometimes in the guise of an angel of light, according to cir- 
cumstances. It ought not to have been mentioned in the 
present controversy. On neither side arc we pleading for 
persecution. In regard to this spirit, its atrocity or its 
hatefulness, there is no question between us; and to fix the 
attention upon this, as if it were mainly or in part the subject 
matter in debate, can serve no other purpose, than to excite 
passion, inflame prejudice, embitter feeling, mislead the 
judgment, and bar the mind against argument and truth. It 
is time, and more than time, that every thing of this sort 
should be utterly discarded, by enlightened and liberal men, 
and by all who would bear the christian name. Though 
we differ, and widely differ in our opinions; — though we en- 
gage in debate on most important and interesting points; — 
though we should find occasion even to separate as to chris- 
tian fellowship; yet there need not be, there ought not to be, 
and if our tempers were right there would not be, any bitter- 
ness, or wrath, or anger, or clamour, or evil speaking on ei- 
ther side. The gospel teaches us to exercise unfailing char- 
ity and good will, not only towards those whom we receive to 
christian fellowship, but towards all men. 

Another of your means for giving to your Remarks the 
abearance and effect of an answer is that of representing my 
Letter as being light and "trifling." You speak repeatedly, 
and not a little contemptuously of "verbal criticism," and of 
"humour and sarcasm." Of the criticism, I shall have oc- 
casion to take some notice in another place; upon the rest, 
my remarks will be short. If, Sir, I have used lightness, if 
my Letter was not serious, I was greatly deceived and great- 
ly to blame. The subject I certainly considered a very mo- 
mentous one; and I did really apprehend that the seriousness 



14 

with which I treated it would be offensive to many. If, as 
you say, particularly in regard to the last head, "the view 
which I took of the subject gave me a field for my powers of 
humour and sarcasm," I believe that you and every reader 
must suppose that my powers of this kind are extremely lim- 
ited and feeble, I confess I was forcibly reminded by your 
remarks, that a writer, whose name I will not mention in any 
connexion with yours, chose to call the book of Proverbs 
"Solomon's Jest Book." — "Let us open the book," says the 
Bishop of Landaff in his answer, "and see what kind of jests 
it contains." 

Another of the means by which you have given to your 
Remarks the appearaivze and effects of an answer is that of di- 
verting attention from the point and the argument; and in 
such a way as to have the effect of suppressing the truth. 
Besides what is general of this kind, in imputing to me a bad 
spirit and a light manner; there are particular instances, somQ 
of which it may be proper to consider. 

In regard to my first head, you very candidly acknowledge, 
that I have "pointed out an inaccuracy in the language which 
you employed to express the charges contained in the Review 7 ." 
This pointing out of a slight verbal inaccuracy you repre- 
sent as being all that I have done; and to this head entire you 
seem to refer in your repeated mention of "verbal criticism." 
Thus by noticing a trivial circumstance, and giving to the 
whole a light name, you divert the attention from the main 
point and argument, and conceal the truth in the case. — You 
had brought, Sir, against the Reviewer, the heavy charge of 
'falsehood" This charge I sincerely believed to be unfound- 
ed; and I attempted, not merely by pointing out a small ver- 
bal inaccuracy, but by fairly examining those parts of the Re- 
view to which you referred, to show that it really was unfoun- 
ded. I do not rest on my own judgment only in the persuasion 
which I feel, that in this attempt I was not unsuccessful. But 
you say, "the question is not what a verbal critick with a dic- 
tionary in his hand may make out of the Review, but what 
are the impressions which readers at large receive from it." 
Here, Sir, I again protest against the "rule" of construction 
which you have repeatedly applied; at least against your man- 



15 

ner of applying it. You surely cannot be unapprised, that 
people receive very different "impressions" from "writings" 
and discourses, especially on controverted points, according 
to the different tempers, or states of mind, with which they 
read or hear. If, as you intimate, you have not met with a 
single individual who did not receive from the Review, impres- 
sions, coincident with the charge which you made; I, on the 
other hand, have not met with a single individual who did re- 
ceive such impressions: and I really believe there were very 
few who did, before their minds were prepared for it by your 
Letter. Your "way," then, "of settling the dispute" is not 
so "short a one" as you seem to imagine. 

I was far, Sir, from believing that you intended to prefer 
against the Reviewer a false and injurious charge. I 
really did suppose that, owing to some unpleasant state of 
mind, you had received from the Review an incorrect im- 
pression,* and did hope that you*would see, and rejoice to see, 
that it was incorrect, and do honour to yourself and to our ho- 
ly profession, by frankly retracting the accusation, and re- 
dressing the wrong which you had unwittingly committed. — 
And here I must say, that I am more fully persuaded, if pos- 
sible, than when I wrote before, that your first charge against 
the Reviewer is entirely unjust,- and that had you duly atten- 
ded to the scope of his remarks, you would have seen, that 
where he speaks of "Unitarianism, in Mr. Belsham's sense of 
the word, being the predominant religion of the liberal party," 
he meant not to determine any thing in respect to numbers, 
but only in respect to prominence and influence. His refer- 
ence to the college and to the principal publications cf the 
party, makes his meaning sufficiently plain. 

You say, p. 14. that I "again and again intimate that Uni- 
tarians, of course, reject all the great and distinguishing 
doctrines of the gospel, particularly the doctrine of atone- 
ment by Christ's death." And upon this you ask, if it is 
"possible that I am unacquainted with the writings of Dr. 
Samuel Clark, and with Bible News," in which books the 
doctrine of atonement is asserted. I have before noticed the 
implied charge in this of misrepresentation on my part; what 
I would now notice is vour turning the attention from the 



16 

fact and the proof, and concealing the truth in the case. I 
know very well that, in the writings here referred to, the 
doctrine of atonement is asserted; and I also know, and all 
who are conversant with this subject know, that the Unitarian 
writers of the present day generally deny this doctrine, as 
do all who agree with them in denying the essential divinity 
of Jesus Christ: and if Dr. Clark's works and Bible News 
are "popular" among them, it is not because they assert the 
doctrine of atonement; but because they serve to unsettle the 
minds of people in regard to the Trinity, and to start them 
from the rock down tiie steep and fearful declivity of Unita- 
rianism. 

"There is a part" of my Letter you say, p. 19, "accord- 
ing to which our charity towards the lowest Unitarians not 
only proves our indifference to truth, but makes us partakers 
in their sentiments and deeds." To divert attention from the 
point and the argument here* you instantly direct it to Cal- 
vinists, and, Hopkinsians. "It is well known," you say, 
"that the old fashioned Calvinists regard the new divinity of 
"the Hopkinsians with great horrour; but it is also true 
"that <a peculiar brotherhood is established' between these 
"two classes of christians in New England. The Calvinists 
"here have never, as a party, borne testimony against Kop- 
"kinsian peculiarities, have never 'purged themselves from 
"the guilt of them,' but walk with Hopkinsians on as friend- 
"ly terms as we do with the lowest Unitarians." Admit 
all that you here state to be true; does it prove that "the 
liberal party" are not guilty of "mutilating the New Testa- 
ment, rejecting nearly all the fundamental doctrines of the 
gospel, and degrading the Saviour to the condition of a falli- 
ble, peccable, and ignorant man?" Not in the least. But 
there is an egregious errour in your statement. It is a well 
known fact, that what you call the old fashioned Calvinists in 
New England, have borne their earnest, decided, and publick 
testimony against what they consider as errours in the Hop- 
kinsian theory; and the Hopkinsians, on their part, have 
borne their testimony, equally earnest, decided, and publick, 
against what they regard as errours in the old Calvinistick 
system. But while they have done this, they have not, on 



17 

either part, held these errours to he fundamental, as they do 
hold the errours of the Unitarians; hut have mutually regard- 
ed each other as being orthodox and sound, in the great es- 
sentials of christian doctrine. And, Sir, however grievous 
it may he to their common opponents, the acknowledged fact 
that they do "walk togethei on friendly terms," notwithstand- 
ing their minor differences and disputes, and all the attempts 
from your quarter to sow discord between them, is highly 
honourable to their principles and feelings; and affords most 
decisive proof that, in the allegations so continually and ve- 
hemently urged against them, as if they were entirely devoid 
of charity, and would acknowledge as christians none who 
differ from them in any point, they have been slanderously 
reported. Had "the old fashioned Calvinists of New York" 
been as well acquainted with the sentiments and characters . 
of the diiTerent classes of orthodox christians in New Eng- 
land, as these are with one another, they would never have 
given the recommendations which they have given to such a 
book as Ely's Contrast. 

Another of the means by which you have given to your 
Remarks the appearance and effect of an answer, is that of 
misstatement. Let me distinctly promise that as, in the 
preceding articles, I have not intended in any instance to 
impeach your motives, so here I mean not to insinuate that 
you have designedly misstated. The misstatements which I 
am about to point out, and which are only a part of what 
might be pointed out, I attribute to no bad intention, but to 
the vague and indiscriminating manner of treating subjects, 
to which you seem to be habituated. 

"It may next be observed," you say, p. 9, "that the com- 
mon disputes about the great doctrines of the gospel have 
not related so much to their truth and importance, as 
to some inferiour points connected with them." Now, Sir, 
in direct opposition to this statement, I should feel the 
utmost safety in affirming, that "the disputes about the 
great doctrines of the gospel have related," and do relate 
primarily and "chiefly to their truth and importance." 
This unquestionably is the fact in regard to the doctrines 
directly in question in the present dispute: the doctrines 



is 

of the Trinity in the Godhead, the true divinity of the 
Saviour, atonement for sin by his death, and justification 
through faith in his blood. On our part, these doctrines 
are held to be true and essentially important; on your 
part, both the importance and the truth of them are deni- 
ed. So long as this is the case, to dispute about "inferi- 
our points connected with these doctrines" would be most 
idle and preposterous. To give some plausibility to your 
strange assertion, you refer to disputes concerning the 
•"benevolence of God" and "his omnipresence." But these, 
Sir, are not "peculiar doctrines of the gospel," but funda- 
mental doctrines of natural religion. "In like manner," 
however, you say, "christians have disputed about the pre- 
cise way in which Christ's death has an influence on our 
forgiveness: but that it has a real and important influence 
on forgiveness almost all have united in asserting." This 
is one instance out of many of the manner, in which you 
conceal the real and essential points of difference in debate* 
The plain truth is, and it ought not to be concealed, that 
while some professed christians hold the death of Christ, 
God manifest in the flesh, to have been an expiatory sacrifice 
for sin, on account of which solely and through faith in 
this blood, forgiveness is to be obtained; others deny this 
doctrine entirely, and hold that the death of Christ, a mere 
creature, was in no proper sense expiatory, and has no 
influence on forgiveness, only as it attests the truth of his 
religion and the benevolence of God. It is in this latter 
sense, at least in some sense altogether different from the 
former, undoubtedly, that you "tell your hearers that God 
sent his Son to die for us." The difference between us in 
regard to "spiritual influences," to which you also refer, is 
not less wide and essential. And, Sir, I believe you might 
be less "general and vague in your representation of the 
truths of the gospel," and not "be precise above what is 
written," nor less "faithful" than you now are. 

"It is urged," you say. p. 16, "that our sentiments 
lead us into an entire indifference to christian truth; that 
we believe all errour to be innocent; that we consider belief 
in the truth as no virtue." No, Sir: but what I advanced 



19 

<on this topick was "urged" directly and explicitly upon your 
broad assertion, that "to believe with Mr. Belsham is no 
crime," in connexion with other declarations and represen- 
tations to the same effect. Why then did you not fairly and 
magnanimously meet me upon this ground? As to what you 
say in this connexion of "love of the truth," as being essen- 
tial to the "faith to which salvation is promised," there is no 
controversy between us. I am happy in expressing my 
agreement with you in this point; and most devoutly wish 
that in every other important point we were equally agreed. 
In coincidence also with you, I hold that there may be true 
faith, where there is but little knowledge of divine truth. I 
am accustomed to make a wide difference between ignorance 
of truth and rejection of truth; between the infelicity of 
bad instruction, and scanty means of divine know-ledge; 
and the audacity of opposing reason to revelation, and the 
wisdom of this world to the wisdom of God. 

What I offered under the third and last head of my Letter, 
on the question of "separation" and which you say is "infi- 
nitely the most important part" of the whole, you have 
almost entirely viisstaied. I did not undertake to decide the 
question of separation in the way of giving an opinion; but 
thought it more befitting, and more likely to be useful, to 
submit some considerations, relating to the subject, which 
appeared to me relevant, and worthy to be most seriously 
weighed on both sides. To these considerations you bring 
no argument in reply. 

You represent, that "the separation, which has been made 
in England by the Unitarians themselves," is something far 
less "solemn," — vastly less dreadful, than the separation 
which you suppose me to favour. What then is the separa- 
tion which the Unitarians in England have made? You de- 
scribe it to be "a separation in worship — a separation pro- 
duced by the adoption of prayers, hymns, and doxo:l- 

QGIES, ACCOMMODATED TO THEIR PECULIAR SENTIMENTS." 

Are we to understand, Sir, that you and your liberal breth- 
ren here, are ready for such a separation as this? If so, there 
is no further occasion of debate on this subject, unless your 
opponents should be unwilling to separate. Let it be under- 



2© 

stood, that the differences between us are such, that we can- 
not consistently worship together — cannot unite in offering the 
same prayers, nor join in the same hymns and doxologies, — and 
the question is settled. What is this, I pray you, short of a 
thorough disruption of fellowship, a complete non-commu- 
hion? — Yet this separation you admit to have been made by 
the Unitarians themselves in England, and of this you ex- 
press not the slightest disapprobation. 

You omit, however, to state "to the publick" the strong 
terms and the earnest manner, in which the English Unita- 
rians urge this separation. You do not mention that they 
loudly call upon their people "to come out from Babylon," — 
to separate themselves from idolaters; and earnestly rep- 
resent that the separation of Unitarians from Trinitarians 
is as obviously proper and necessary, as was the separation 
of the Protestants from the church of Rome, and that such 
Unitarians as continue to worship with Trinitarians, are 
either still in great darkness, or else guilty of compromising 
their consciences to a most reprehensible extent. This you 
have omitted to mention: yet you who are much more exten- 
sively conversant with the English Unitarian writers, than 
I can pretend to be, must have been perfectly acquainted 
with the fact. 

Such then is the separation, made by the Unitarians them- 
selves in England; and such the terms and the manner in 
Which its importance is urged. Of this separation, I repeat 
it, you express no disapprobation: you speak of it in no oth- 
er manner, than if in your judgment it were entirely unob- 
jectionable. Now, Sir, permit me to ask, what greater or 
more dreadful separation than this, do any of your opponents 
contemplate? Has even the Panoplist Reviewer proposed any 
thing more frightful? or has he urged his proposal in terms, 
more decisive, or in a manner more vehement? To what, be- 
yond this, can any of the considerations submitted in my Let- 
ter, by fair construction or legitimate inference, be made to 
favour? 

Yet speaking of me, p. 23, you say, "The obvious import 
"of his Letter (and it is the obvious import, and not a 

"STRAINED AND CIRCUITOUS INTERPRETATION WHICH I 



"regard) may be thus expressed: 'Every man who cannot 
< « admit as a doctrine of scripture, the great doctrine or 

* 'THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD, WHICH I AND OTHER OR- 
«* 'THODOX CHRISTIANS EMBRACE, BELIEVES AN OPPOSITE 

" 'gospel, rejects the true gospel, despises the authority 
" 'of Jesus Christ, is of course a man wholly wanting is 

* 'TRUE PIETY AND WITHOUT CHRISTIAN VIRTUE; and may 

" 'in perfect consistency with christian love be rejected as un- 

* 'worthy the name of a christian.' " Here, Sir, I suppose 
you to have applied the "rule" of construction which I have 
twice before noticed, — that of the "impression" which hap- 
pened to be made on your mind, without duly considering the 
meaning of the words, and the scope of the argument. And 
here I record my final and solemn protest against your use of 
this rule. 

In vain, Sir, will any one search in my Letter for what 
you would make me say. I did indeed think it right, not 
"studiously to magnify" the points of difference between us, 
which you seemed studiously to conceal; but distinctly to state 
them, and set them in a fair and clear light. In doing this, 
I contrasted Mr. Belsham's sentiments with the doctrines 
held by orthodox christians; (not however making you an- 
swerable for those sentiments, any further than as you plead 
for their being held in general christian fellowship;) and I 
did pronounce that "one or the other of these schemes must 
be what St. Paul denominates another gospel, and against 
which and its abetters he solemnly pronounces his apostolick 
anathema." This is the most that 1 have any where said. 
I did not draw the inference, that "every man" who rejects 
the orthodox doctrines and embraces Mr. Belsham's senti- 
ments, "is of course a man wholly wanting in true piety, and 
without christian virtue." This, Sir, is your own inference; 
I have said no such thing. I do not, however, complain of 
your making the inference, though you protest against th« 
practice: but since you have made it, you will permit me to 
hold you to it. By making this inference, you give it to he 
understood, and in effect concede, that in your own judgment 
every one who does embrace another gcspel, than that Which 
Paul preached, "is of course wholly wanting in true piety, rnd 
without christian virtue." — Now, Sir, will you deny the 



m 

premises? Will you deny, that either Mr. Belsham's system, 
or that called orthodox, must be another gospel? Will you 
deny that these two systems are essentially different, from 
the foundation to the topstone? We are here, as you will cer- 
tainly perceive, to lay out of the question the doctrines of 
natural religion, and confine our attention to such as are pe- 
culiar to the gospel. Do not, then, the Unitarians, whose 
sentiments are set forth by Mr Belsham, reject every doc- 
trine of the gospel, as held by orthodox christians? I am per- 
suaded, Sir, you will not deny this. Your own inference, then, 
is that either those who embrace Mr. Belsham's scheme, or 
those who hold the doctrines called orthodox, are "of course 
wholly wanting in true piety and without christian virtue." 
I now refer it to you to say further, whether they can con- 
sistently meet together at the table of the Lord. 

But you make me say, not only that the Unitarians who 
hold with Mr. Belsham, are "wholly wanting in true piety 
and without christian virtue," which I have no where said; 
hut also that "every man" is so, "who cannot admit as a 
doctrine of scripture, the great doctrine of three persons in 
one God, which I and other orthodox christians embrace." 
So far, however, from having said this, I have not even as- 
serted the premises from which such an inference could be 
drawn. No where have I said or intimated, that every one 
who does not admit the doctrine of the Trinity as I hold it, 
"rejects the true gospel, and believes an opposite gospel." 
For stating that I have said this, you have not the shadow of 
a warrant. 

Dr. Samuel Clark's views of the Trinity, as I before inti- 
mated, are very different from mine and those called ortho- 
dox, and in my judgment very erroneous, and of dangerous 
tendency. Yet I am by no means prepared to say, that every 
one who adopts his views of the Trinity rejects the true gos- 
pel, embraces another, and is devoid of christian faith and 
virtue: for I can suppose that a person may adopt those views, 
and yet be a sound believer in the doctrine of atonement by 
Christ's death, and of justification through faith in his blood. 
As much as this I am also ready to say respecting other views 
©f the Trinity very different from mine, and in my opinion 



Very erroneous and dangerous. Let me repeat it, and let it 
be remembered, my concern in tins debate is with those who 
deny the essential divinity, and the propitiatory sacrifice of 
Jesus Christ. These doctrines I certainly do consider as 
constituting the very foundation of the gospel; and I 
feel no unwillingness to have it understood, that in my judg- 
ment every one who rejects these doctrines does reject the 
true gospel, and must either embrace another gospel, or be 
a Jew or an Infidel. If you say, as you have before infer- 
ed, "then all who deny these doctrines are wholly wanting 
in true piety and without christian virtue;" I will leave you 
in the quiet possession of the inference, and would earnestly 
recommend it to your very serious consideration. 

For myself, however, I think it sufficient at present, to 
refer the deniers of these doctrines, as I would all others, in 
regard to their inward piety and their final state, to Him 
who searcheth the heart, and to whom it belongs to award 
the retributions of eternity. Always, Sir, would I feel, and 
deeply feel, that I am a "frail, fallible creature:" and if for 
this reason I should "shudder at the awful temerity" of ad- 
judging to final perdition, "men of the profoundest under- 
standings, of the purest lives, and of unwearied devotion to 
the study of God's word;" no less should I shudder at the 
no less awful temerity of adjudging to eternal life, men, 
however fair their characters in the eyes of the world, how- 
ever renowned for what the world calls wisdom, however 
distinguished among the friends of science, or of sacred lit- 
erature, who, nevertheless, deny the blood of atonement, de- 
grade the Lord who bought them to the condition of a mere 
creature, and, not submitting themselves to the righteousness 
of God, go about to establish their own righteousness, I did 
not, therefore, when writing my former Letter, nor do I 
now, think it incumbent on me to determine how much of 
divine truth a man may reject, and yet have saving faith; 
or what is the precise point or degree of errour, beyond 
which there can be no hope of any one's salvation. With 
questions of this sort, I have not at all intermeddled: not 
only because I am consciously incompetent to decide upon 
flicm; but also because I do not consider them as belonging 



24 

to the present discussion: and I have wished that the discus* 
sion might not be incumbered or perplexed with any thing 
extraneous or irrelevant. 

The question now at issue is, whetlier visible christian fel- 
lowship ought to be maintained between orthodox christians and 
Unitarians. There are cases, indisputably, in which it may 
be right to maintain visible fellowship with individuals, re- 
specting the sincerity of whose christian profession we may 
have very strong doubts; on the other hand, there may be 
cases in which it were right to decline visible fellowship with 
individuals, of whose christian sincerity we have very strong 
hopes. When, in the regular exercise of discipline, a church 
passes the sentence of excommunication upon a peccant mem- 
ber, it does not by that act pronounce the excluded person to 
be "wholly wanting in true piety and without christian vir- 
tue." Leaving that decision to the omniscient Judge, it is 
sufficient for the church to decide, that the person is so dis- 
orderly in Ids walk, or so corrupt in his sentiments, that the 
purity and welfare of the church, the honour of religion, 
and fidelity to the cause of truth, require his exclusion. This 
decision should be made, only in the spirit of charity, and 
in the fear of God. Upon the same general principle, a 
church may withdraw fellowship from another church, with- 
out meaning to pronounce that every individual in that other 
church is utterly graceless and in a state of condemnation. 
The Protestants did not pronounce this, when they separ- 
ated from the church of Rome: — but they did pronounce that 
the errours of that church were subversive of the gospel, 
and most dangerous to the eternal interests of mankind; 
and they felt it incumbent on them to come out and be separate 
from all communion with those errours, and to bear their 
publick, decided, and most solemn testimony against them. 

Nothing more than this, Sir, has been proposed in the 
present case. It is our solemn conviction, that the errours 
of the Unitarians are subversive of the gospel, and most 
dangerous to the eternal interests of mankind; and we think 
it right and indispensably incumbent on us, clearly to de- 
velope them before the world, fully to display their enormi- 
ty and their pernicious tendency, and faithfully to bear our 



9.5 

testimony against them, and to warn all people to beware 
lest tiiey be deceived and misled by them to their final ruin. 
Tins we believe to be an urgent dictate of that charity, 
which supremely seeks the glory of God and the salvation of 
men; a dictate, which we are fully persuaded we may obey, 
without justly incurring the charge of "awful temerity," — i 
without pronouncing any "sentence" more "tremendous" than 
we are warranted by the word of God to pronounce, — without 
takmg up ui ourselves any "responsibility," which it would 
n >t oe treacherous and most criminal, in those who are set for 
the defenfip of the gospel, to decline. 

Such, Sir, are my views; sach are the principles on which, in 
my firmer Letter, the remarks and arguments on the subject 
of separation were founded; and with these views and princi- 
pl 's, all which is there advanced is in perfect and most evi- 
d nt coincidence. — Your statement, therefore, of the "import 
of the concluding part" of my Letter is most p.dpably incor- 
rect an J unjust. And though I attribute this incorrectness 
an 1 tins injustice, not to any injurious intention, but to that 
habit of thinking and feeling of which I have before taken no- 
ti ?; yzt after what I have now stated, I think I have a right to 
call upon you, — and I do solemnly call upon you, to retract this 
fiagrant misstatement. I know indeed, you have given it to 
be understood, that you shall not write again; but, Sir, the 
publick disputant who makes this resolve ought to be careful, 
not merely, not to "put down ought In malice," but to write 
nothing which justice to his opponent and to the cause of 
truth, — nothing which the sacred principles of Christianity 
will require him to retract. 

It is upon the ground of this incorrect and injurious state- 
ment, that you have founded the earnest and impassioned 
appeal, in which you seem to have put forth all your powers 
x)f rhetorick, and by which you evidently designed to make 
your grand and decisive impression against me. But as the 
ground is removed, the whole splendid shew must dissolve, 
"like the baseless fabrick of a vision." — As to what you say, 
in this connexion, with reference to my statement, that "the 
Saviour whom you acknowledge is infinitely inferiour to 
oui-s," a very brief remark may be sufficient. I did suppose 
4 



you would yet acknowledge JESUS CHRIST to be your 
SAVIOUR. Your declaration, however, if it has any 
pertinency, plainly imports that you do not. How can you 
then sit down at his table in communion with those who do 
acknowledge him as their SAVIOUR, — and who with undis- 
gsmbled gratitude and devotion unite in the holy ascrip- 
tion, — Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in 
his own blood, and hath made us kings and pnests unto God and 
his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and 
ever. We worship, Sir, THE FATHER, SON, AND 
HOLY GHOST. Do you worship this same GOD? 

You "did look" to me, you are pleased to say, "for a 
healing spirit." Happy, indeed will he be, who shall be in- 
strumental in "raising up the foundations of many genera- 
tions," and justly "be called, The repairer of the breach, 
The restorer of paths to dwell in." But wo to him, who 
would "heal the hurt slightly, saying, Peace, peace, when 
there is no peace!" Few men can have greater inducements, 
than I have, to listen to the enchanting voice of peace; few 
could have engaged in this controversy with greater reluc- 
tance, or have brought to it greater heaviness and sorrow of 
heart. — But the servants of him who endured the cross, de- 
spising the shame, must not confer with flesh and blood: must 
never forget the solemn declaration, He that loveth father or 
motlier more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth 
son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he 
that taketh not his cross and follow eth after me is net worthy 
of me. 

You charge me with "studiously magnifying the differen- 
ces" between orthodox Christians and Unitarians; and 
with "studiously overlooking the points of agreement." 
There is certainly no occasion to magnify the differences; 
they are in themselves sufficiently great. To me, however, 
it has appeared vastly important, that people should "learn 
the distinction between Trinitarian ism and Unitarianism." 
This you recommend in your "Note;" and in this recommenda- 
tion I cordially join. Upon this, however, you proceed to some 
discussion, as if with a design to shew the "distinction;" and 
you finally represent it as being little, if any thing more 



37 

than a mere "sound." Elsewhere, also, you speak of it a* 
being only a "difference which relates to the obscurest of all 
subjects, to the essence and metaphysical nature of God." 
And throughout both your Letter and your Remarks you 
leem to have laboured, assiduously, to conceal the points of 
difference betweeen us, and to make the impression that these 
points are few and of very little importance. This mode of 
treating the subject appears to me exceedingly improper, and 
of most deceptive tendency. Is this the way, Sir, to pro- 
mote the knowledge of truth? Is it thus that you would con- 
duct "that candid and impartial research," which according 
to your Letter, is to "guide mankind to a purer system of 
Christianity, than is now to be found in any church under 
Heaven," — and to bring about a "glorious reformation of the 
church of God?" 

In opposition to this system of concealment, I have thought 
it right and important to endeavour a developement, and to 
lay the differences between us open to the publick in their 
true light. On our part we have no dread of this; no dread 
of a clear and full developement. It has long been our earnest 
desire, that your sentiments as well as ours, might be known; 
and that all christians and all people might well understand 
the points on which you differ from us. On this account we 
devoutly rejoice that the subject has been brought before the 
publick. In our view, it has come forward in a way to an- 
swer an important purpose. A "general discussion" of the 
differences between us, would have been of little avail, while 
people were utterly unapprised that such differences really 
existed, and were fast asleep in, regard to them. It was first 
of all desirable that these differences should be disclosed; 
that people should be made to see them to be not imaginary, 
but real; not of trivial consequence, but of essential impor- 
tance; and that their attention sould be strongly drawn to 
them. 

It was under impressions of this kind, that I was induced 
to make the statements, exhibited in my former Letter; and 
under the same impressions, I now proceed to a still mow 
distinct and detailed statement. 



Orthodox christians hold, that the Scriptures of the Old 
and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God; and 
that all which they coiitain is to be received as truth, on the 
authority of God. — But by the principal Unitarian wri- 
ters, and, so far as is known, by Unitarians generally, the 
plenary inspiration of the scriptur s is denied. "The scrip- 
tures," says Dr. Priestley,* "were written without an-y par- 
ticular inspiration, by men who wrote according to the best 
of their knowledge, and who, from their circumstances, could 
not be mistaken, with regard to the greater facts of which 
they were properly witnesses; but (like ot her men subject to 
prejudice) might be liable to adopt a hasty and ill grounded 
opinion, concerning tilings which did not fall within the com- 
pass of their own knowledge, and which had no connexion 
with any thing that was so. We ought all of us, there i';re, 
to consider ourselves fully at liberty to examine, with the 
greatest rigour, both the reasonings of the writers, and the 
facts of which we find any account in their writings; 
that, judging by the rules of just criticism, we may 
distinguish what may be depended an f ram what may not.- 9 
Mr. Belsham says,f "The scriptures contain a faithful and 
credible account of the chnstian doctrine, which is the true 
word of God; but they are not themselves the word of God, 
nor did they ever assume tli at title; and it is highly improper 
to speak of them as such; as it leads inattentive readers to 
suppose they were written under a plenary inspiration, to 
which they make no pretension; and as such expressions ex- 
pose Christianity, unnecessarily, to the cavils of unbelievers.'^ 

•History of Early Opinions, vol. iv, p. 5. 

f Review of Wilberforce, p. 19. 

t Perhaps I may be charged, says Dr. Magee, with having made a distinction in 
his pi A(ie, which gives an unfair representation <;f Unitarians, inasmuch as the) also 
profess to derive their arguments from scripture. But whether that profession be 
not intended in mockery, one might be almost tempted to question; when it is found 
that in every instance, the doctrine of scripture is tried by their abstract notion 
ofrLht, and rejected if not accordant: — when by means of figure and allusion, it 
is every where made to speak a language the most repugnant to all fair, critical 
interpretation; until emptied of its true meaning, it is converted info a vehicle 
for every fmtastick theory, which under the name of rational, they may think 
proper to adopt: — when in such parts as propound gospel truths of a contexture 
foo solid to admit of an escape in figure and allusion, the sacred writers are charged 



29 

Though all Unitarians may not be ready fully to adopt the 
language or the sentiments on this subject of Dr. Priestley, 
Mr. Belsham, or others, mentioned in the note below; yet 
I believe very few, if any of them, admit the plenary in- 
spiration of the scriptures. But, Sir, if the plenary inspira- 
tion of the scriptures be denied, where shall we stop? How 
Shall we determine what is the word of God, and what is 
not? What other test, or criterion, of truth have we, than 

REASON? 

Accordingly the Unitarians very generally seem to have 
adopted "the fundamental rule" of the old Socinians, "That no 
doctrine ought to be acknowledged as true in its nature, or 
divine in its origin, all whose parts are not level to the com- 
prehension of the human understanding; an/1 that, whatever 
the Holy Scriptures teach concerning the perfections of God, 
Ins counsels and decrees, and the way of salvation, must be 
modified, curtailed, and filed down, in such a manner, by the 
transforming power of art and argument, as to answer the 
extent of our limited faculties."^ That this is the principle* 
and this the labour of Unitarians, no one who is conversant 

as bunglers, producing "lame accounts, improper quotations, and inconclusive rea- 
sonings," (Dr. Priestley'' s 12th Letter to Mr. Burn J and philosophy is conse- 
quently called in to rectify their errors: — when one writer of this class (Stein- 
hart) tells us, that "the narrations," (in the New Testament) "true or false, are 
only suited for ignorant, uncultivated minds, who cannot enter into the evidence 
of natural religion;" and again, that "Moses, according to the childish conceptions 
of the Jews in his days, paints God as agitated by violent affections, partial 16 
one people, and hating all other nations:" — when another, (Sender) remarking 
on St. Peter's declaration, that prophecy came not in old time by the ivillof man, 
but Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, says, that 
•'Peter speaks here according to the conception of the Jews," and that "the 
prophets may have delivered the offspring of their own brains as divine revela- 
tions:" f Dr. Erskine's Sketches and Hints of Ch. Hist. No 3, pp. P6, 71.)— when 
a third (Engedin) speaks of St. John's portion of the New Testament, as written 
with "concise and abrupt obscurity, inconsistent with itself, and made up of alle- 
gories;" and Gagneius glories in having given "a little light to St. Paul's darkness, 
a darkness, as some think, industrioush affected:" — when we find Mr. Evanson, 
one of those able commentators referred to by Mr. Belsham in his Review, kc. 
p. 206: assert, (~ Dissonance, &c. p. i,) that "the evangelical histories contain 
gross ai'd irreconcileable contradictions," and consequently discard three out of the 
four, retaining the gospel of St. Luke only, at the same time drawing his pen over 
as much of this, as either from its infelicity of style, or other si«7j causes happens 
not to meet his approbation." JVtagee on Atonement, Notes, No. 14. 
* Mosheim's Eccl. Hist Cent. 16. chap. 4. 



30 

with their writings can doubt. Denying the plenary inspiration 
of the scriptures, they hold themselves at liberty to subject 
those sacred writings to all the torture of the most rigorous 
criticism; not for the purpose merely of deciding upon "vari- 
ous readings," of elucidating obscure passages by reference 
to ancient customs and manners, or of ascertaining the true 
meaning of the original words, and their most natural sense 
in the connexions in which they occur; but for the purpose 
especially, of explaining the different parts in such a manner 
as to make them yield a meaning conformable to their views 
of what is rational. In this mighty work human reason ap- 
pears in all its pride, and the wisdom of this world in its 
highest glory. 

Here is the primary point of difference between orthodox 
christians and Unitarians. The orthodox, holding the Bible 
to be the word of the living God, feel themselves warranted 
and bound to embrace as divine truth, every doctrine which 
they find revealed in that sacred volume, however humbling 
to reason it may be, however mysterious and incomprehensi- 
ble. But the Unitarians, regarding the Bible in a very dif- 
ferent light, are not restrained from using greater liberties 
with it: are not restrained from rejecting such doctrines, as 
transcend the comprehension of their own understandings, 
or do not comport with their views of what is rational; but 
glory in excluding all mystery from religion. Hence the 
name which they assume of rationax christians; and 
hence the imposing superiority which they affect over those, 
who understand the scriptures in their natural and obvious 
sense, and believe in doctrines confessedly beyond the powers 
of the human mind to comprehend. 

On the authority of the scriptures, orthodox christians be- 
lieve that the one Jehovah exists in a Trinity, called the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These we call three 
persons; because we have no better word by which to denote 
the distinction; and because they apply to each other the 
personal pronouns I, Thou, and He, and to themselves together, 
the plurals wc 9 us, and our. This Trinity in the Godhead 
we acknowledge to be a mystery, which we pretend not to 
comprehend, and which we would not undertake to explain. 



31 

So too the eternal existence of God, in any mode, is to us a 
mystery; his omnipresence is a mystery; his omniscience is 
a mystery; his creating all things out of nothing by the word 
of his power, is a mystery. We find mysteries, indeed, in all 
his perfections and works; mysteries in natural religion, as 
well as in revealed; mysteries in every thing around us, as 
utterly beyond our powers to explain or comprehend, as 
that of the Trinity in the Godhead. 

We believe this doctrine, because we find it in those scrip- 
tures, which we receive as given by divine inspiration. In 
the scriptures, the original Hebrew name, by which the 
Supreme Being is most commonly called, is plural: [Meim, 
Gods.] In coincidence with this plural name, other plural words 
are used. "Let us make man in our own image." "Behold 
the man has become as one of us." "The knowledge of the 
Holy (in the original the Holy Ones) is understanding." 
"Remember now thy Creator (original Creators) in the 
days of thy youth." This remarkable use of plurals, which 
runs through the Hebrew scriptures, we think clearly denotes 
a plurality of what, as I before observed, we call persons. 
Yet we read, "Hear Israel, Jehovah our God (our Jileim, 
Gods) is one Jehovah;" and of the unity of God we find in 
the scriptures abundant proof. To each of the Holy Ones, 
however, to the Father, to the Son, and to the Spirit, the 
scriptures ascribe divine names and titles, — divine attributes, — 
divine works, — and divine honours. The proofs of all this 
are so abundant and so memorable, that for my present pur- 
pose it is not necessary to cite even a specimen. Each of 
the three, therefore, we believe to be truly and essentially 
divine, and all of them equal in dignity and glory. 

But tltis doctrine of the Trinity the Unitarians utterly 
deny: not because there is no proof of it in the scriptures; 
but because it is a doctrine, (as you repeatedly and emphati- 
cally pronounce in your Letter and Remarks?) "perplexing," 
"mysterious," and not to be "understood." 

The doctrine of the Trinity, we hold to be important, fun- 
damentally important, in relation especially to the general 
doctrine of redemption and salvation revealed in the gospel. 
In the gospel, the Sod, Jesus Christ, is revealed as our Re- 



$2 

deemer and Saviour; the Holy Spirit, as our Sanctifier and 
Comforter. But who is Jesus Christ, and who is the Holy 
Spirit? With what feelings and affections, with what expec- 
tations and hopes, witli what kind and degree of reverence 
and confidence, is it suitable that we should regard the one 
and the other? What is the nature, and what the extent of the 
work which they severally perform far us? and what the 
nature, and the extent of our obligations to them? These are 
most interesting questions: questions not merely of a specu- 
lative nature, but of the first practical concernment, of the 
very highest religious importance. But by each of these 
questions we are directly referred to the doctrine of the 
Trinity; and to each of them infinitely different answers will 
be given, by those who believe, and those who disbelieve, 
this doctrine. 

Who then is Jesus Christ? The apostle John in the first of 
his gospel, says, "In the beginning was the Word, 
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All 

THINGS WERE MADE BY HlM, AND WITHOUT HlM WAS 
NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE." Ill the (lose of 

his first Epistle, 1 e says "This is the true God, and 
eternal life. St. Paul alsa speaks of "our great God and 
Saviour Jesus Christ;" calls Him, "God over all bles- 
sed forevermore;" and says that "all things were made by 
Him and for Him." Language of similar import is familiar 
to the sacred writers; who as before intimated, most abun- 
dantly and expressly ascribe to Jesus Christ divine names, 
titles, attributes, works, and honours. Upon authority such 
as this, we believe that the Son is essentially divine, — essen- 
tially equal to the Father. — And believing this, we feel our- 
selves warranted and bound to regard Him with all the feel- 
ings and affections, hopes and expectations, reverence and 
confidence, which a Saviour of infinite perfections, of illimi- 
table riches of grace and of glory, can inspire or claim. The 
scriptures, however, teach us further, that the same "Word," 
— who "vvas in the beginning with God and was God," — "was 
made flesh and dwelt among us;" that "He took on him the 
seed of Abraham," — "was made of a woman, made wider 
flie law;" that though being in the form of God, he thought 



as 

U not robbery to be eojjal with God,- yet he made himself of 
no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, 

AND WAS MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN; and being 

found in fashion as a man, tie humbled himself, and became 
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross," We therefore 
believe that, in the person of the Son, God was manifest in 
the flesh, in our own nature; that, in the person of Jesus 
Christ, God and man were united. And here we see a foun- 
dation for all that is said in tiie scriptures, importing an ine- 
quality of the Son to the Father. The Son was subordinate 
to the Father in office, as he was pleased to take upon him 
the form of a servant; and he was inferiour to the Father in 
respect of his human nature. Viewing Him, then, in his two 
natures, divine and human, we see a perfect consistency, in 
his being represented, as he is in the scriptures, both as God 
and man; as essentially equal to the Father, and yet in other 
respects unequal. This union, again, we acknowledge to be 
a mystery, which we pretend not to comprehend; but as we 
find it revealed in the word of God, we feel ourselves bound 
to believe it, as a most interesting and important truth. 

But this doctrine also the Unitarians deny. They deny 
the true Divinity of the Son, Jesus Christ; and hold him to 
be a mere creature: some of them, a creature of more than 
angelick dignity; others, no more than a mere man. The 
Saviour's divinity, however, as must appear from the brief 
statement now made, is denied, not because there is no proof 
of it in the scriptures, understood in their most obvious and 
harmonious sense; but because, like the doctrine of the Trin- 
ity of which it is a branch, and with which it must stand or 
fall, it involves mysteries which the human understanding 
cannot explain or comprehend, and which, therefore, accord- 
ing to the leading canon of Unitarian criticism, before cited, 
are not to be received as truth.* 

* Upon the words of our Saviour, John vi, 62: "What and if ye shall see the 
Son of man ascend up -where he was before." Dr. Priestley, remarks, "Though 
not satisfied with any interpretation that has been given of this extraordinary pas- 
sage, yet rather than believe our Saviour to have existed in any other state before 
the creation of the world, or to have left some state of great dignity and happi- 
ness when he came hither, he would have recourse to the old and exploded Socin- 
ian idea of Christ's actual ascent into heaven, or of his imagining that he had been 
5 



34 

Jesus Christ is revealed as our Redeemer and Saviour. 
But what is the nature, and what the extent of his work, in 
these interesting characters? According to the scriptures, He 
is "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the 
world, 99 His "flesh ivas given for the life of the world;' 9 — 
his "blood was shed for many, for the remission of sens." 
He "was offered to bear the sins of many." He "teas 
made a curse for us, and bore our sins in his own body 
on the tree. He "was delivered for our offences, 
and raised again for our justification." "In him we. 
hare redemption through his blood, the forgiveness 
of sins, according to the riches of his grace." He 
"gave himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to 
God." "He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice 
of himself;" — and he is the propitiation, the expiatory 
sacrifice, for our sins, and not for onrs oidy, but also for 
the sins of the whole world." "Not by the blood of goats 
and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the 
holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for 
us;" wherefore "he is able to save them to the ut- 
termost that came unto God by Him, seeing he ever liveth 

TO MAKE INTERCESSION FOR THEM." "This is the StonC 

whkhwas set at nought of you builders, which is become the 
head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any 
other; for there is none other name under heav- 
en given among men whereby we must be saved." 
In these, Sir, and the passages to the same effect with which 
the scriptures abound, we see the foundation of all our hopes 
for eternity. This foundation is Jesus Christ — Jesus Christ 
crucified. Upon this divine testimony, so explicit and so 
abundant, we believe that the death of Jesus Christ was a 
vicarious atonement, a propitiatory sacrifice for sin: and that 

carried up thither in a vision; which like that of St. Paul, Ive had not been able to 
distinguish from a reality; nay, he would not build an article of faith, of such mag- 
nitude on the correctness oj John's recollection and representation of our Lord's 
language; and so strange and incredible does the hypothesis of a pre-existent 
state appear, that sooner than admit it, he vtotdd suppose the whole verse to be 
an interpolation, or that the old apostle dictated one thing and hib 
amanuensis avrote anotheb." Letters to Dr. Price, as quoted by Dr. 
Magee. 



S5 

in him we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins, and 
solely on account of the merits of his blood. 

Connected with this doctrine of atonement, and founded 
upon it, is the doctrine of justification by faith. The whole 
is presented in one concise view, in the third of Romans. 
"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it 
saith to them that are under the law, tJmt every mouth may 
be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God, 'There- 
fore BY THE DEEDS OF THE LAW, THERE SHALL NO 

flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the 
knowledge of sin. Bat now the righteousness of God without 
the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the 
prophets; even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of 
Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for 
there is no difference: for all have sinned and come short oftlhe 
glory of God: being justified freely of his grace, through 
the redemption that is in christ jesus, whom 
God hath set forth to be a propitiation through 
faith in his BLOOD, to declare his righteousness, for the 
remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 
to declare, I say, at this time his rigliteousness; that he 
might be just, and the justifier of him which be- 
lie veth in Jesus." 

But all this is dented by Unitarians. I do not mean that 
they utterly discard and would obliterate the sacred passages 
here cited, and all others of similar import; but, comforma- 
bly to the rule and the practice of the Polish Unitarians, as 
before quoted from Moshcim, "they modify, curtail, and file 
down" these passages, or the momentous doctrine contained 
in them, "in such a manner, by the transforming power of 
art and argument, as to answer the extent of their limited 
faculties." The doctrine of a propitiatory sacrifice by 
Christ's death, of redemption through his blood, of the for- 
giveness of sins and justification on account of his vicarious 
merits they reject, as unreasonable in itself, inconsistent with 
the goodness of God, and derogatory to the character of man. 
— "Christ being a man," says Dr. Priestley,* "who suffered 
and died in the best of causes, there is nothing so very differ- 

* Theol. Rep. vol. i, p. S9. 



S6 

entin the occasion and manner of his death, from that of others 
who suffered and died after him in the same cause of Chris- 
tianity, but tluit tJieir sufferings and death may be consider- 
ed in the same light with his." Again he says,* "Re- 
pentance and a good life are of themselves sufficient to re- 
commend us to the divine favour." "In this," then he says 
again,f (that is in the notion that Christ's death had no re- 
lation to the forgiveness of sins) "let us acquiesce, not 
douhting but that, though not perhaps at present, we shall in 
time be able, without any effort or straining, to explain 
all particular expressions in the Apostolical Epistles:" a 
plain confession, that it is not without "effort and straining 9 ' 
that the scriptures are now accommodated to the Unitarian 
doctrine. "When, (says Mrs. Barbauld4) will christians per- 
mit themselves to believe, that the same conduct which gains 
them the approbation of good men here, will secure the 
favour of heaven hereafter? — When a man, like Dr. Price, 
is about to resign his soul into the hands of his Maker, he 
ought to do it not only with a reliance on his mercy, but 
his justice. It does not become him to pay the blasphemous 
homage of deprecating the wrath of God, when he ought to 
throw himself into the arms of Ms love!" — "Other foundation 
can no man lay:" (says Dr. Harwood,§ as if with an express 
design to contradict an apostle.) "All hopes founded upon 
any thing else than a good moral life, are merely imaginary!" 
"There can be no proper foundation," says Mr. Belsham.JJ 
"for religious addresses to him, [Christ] nor of gratitude to 
him for favours now received, nor of confidence in his future 
interpositions in our behalf!" It were easy to fill many 
pages with passages to this general effect, selected from the 
writings of Unitarians. 

Concerning the Holy Spirit, my limits do not allow me to be 
particular. Suffice it to say, that while orthodox christians be- 
lieve that He, like the Father and the Son, is truly and essen- 
tially divine, — and that all which is truly holy and virtuous in 
any of mankind is to be ascribed to his sovereign and gracious 

* Hist of Corrup. of Christianity, vol. i, p. 155. f Theol Rep. vol i, p. 214. 
$ Remarks on Wakefield. § Sermon6j as quoted by Dr. Fuller. 

{J Review of Wilberfor^e. 



S7 

agency; both the one and the other of these doctrines are de- 
nied by Unitarians. "In popular language, says Mr. Bel- 
sham,* the virtuous affections of virtuous men, are, with 
great propriety ascribed to God; and the pious writers of the 
scriptures have often adopted this form of expression. 
Whether they themselves believed in the existence of fre- 
quent and supernatural impressions upon the mind, does not 
clearly appear; and it is certain that they no wJiere affirm that 
it constituted any part oftlieir commission, to teach this extra- 
ordinary AXD IMPROBABLE DOCTRIIfE." 

I mean not, Sir, to say or to intimate, that you, or any of 
your liberal brethren here would adopt all the expressions, or 
all the sentiments, now cited from Unitarian writers. I know 
that Unitarianism has its degrees and diversities, and is a 
variable and mutable tiling. Dr. Priestley says of himself, 
that he was once "a Calvinist and that of the straitcst sect;" 
that afterwards he "became an high Arian, and in a little 
time a Socinian of the lowest kind, in which Christ is consid- 
ered as a mere man, the Son of Joseph and Mary, and natur- 
ally as fallible and peccable as Moses or any other prophet:*' 
and even then he wished it to be understood, that he did "not 
know when his creed would be fixed." It is easier and safer 
to say what Unitarians do not believe, than what they do. 
The sentiments however, here exhibited, in contrast with or- 
thodox doctrines, are Unitarian; and it is not to be forgot- 
ten that we are required to hold in christian fellowship, 
those Unitarians who go to all these lengths, as well as those 
who do not. 

My design in the sketch now given, was not to go into a 
defence of the doctrines called orthodox, or into a refutation 
of the Unitarian system; (a design which I am fully aware 
would require a volume rather than a pamphlet;) but to ex- 
hibit in a more specifick and connected manner than I had be- 
fore done, some of the principal points of difference between 
these two classes; and to present a summary view of the 
grounds on which they respectively stand. 

Now, Sir, are these differences inconsiderable and unim- 
portant? And is it proper to represent them as consisting only 

* Review of Wilberforee, i>. 78. 



38 

in a *'m$aj>hjsicpl*' point, or a mere "sound?" — If tlie scrip- 
tures entire were given by inspiration of God, and ought to be 
received with all reverence and humility, as having his seal to 
all the doctrines which they teach, as well as to all the pre- 
cepts which they inculcate,* is it a light "thing to deny them 
this supreme authority, and to subject them to the test of fee- 
ble, erring reason, and to the ordeal of arrogant, philo- 
sophical criticism?^ If the doctrine of the Trinity is reveal- 
ed in the word of God; if it rests on the sure foundation of 
divine testimony; is it a light thing to reject this doctrine, 
because it transcends the limited faculties of the human 
mind; and to pronounce it irrational and absurd, because we 
cannot comprehend it? Though we cannot by searching find 
out God unto perfection; yet may we not assuredly believe that 
He knows himself, and the mode of his own existence? and 
may we not safely rely on what he reveals respecting himself, 
though there be something relating to it, and beyond it, 
which we cannot understand? If Jesus Christ is truly and 
essentially divine, and all men are required to "honour the 
Son, even as they honour the Father;" is it a light thing to deny 
his divinity, to refuse to him all divine honours, and to regard 
and treat him only as a mere creature? If, though he thought 
it no robbery to be equal with God, yet for the salvation of 
lapsed and lost mankind, he came down from heaven, took 
upon him the form of a servant, was made in the likeness of 
men, and became obedient unto death even the death of the 
cross, as an offering and sacrifice, for the sins of the world; is 
it a light thing to deny this doctrine of atonement, — to refuse 
to acknowledge that stupendous display of divine wisdom, con- 
descension and love which it reveals, which the inspired writers 
celebrate in the most exalted strains of gratitude and praise, 
and to which all the multitude of saints before the throne of 
God and the Lamb, ascribe their redemption from eternal per- 
dition to immortal life and glory! If Jesus Christ crucified 

* Let me not be understood to speak in any disparagement of fair and legiti- 
mate biblical criticism. I honour the labours of Kennicott, De Rossi, Michaelis, 
Griesbach, Lowth, and raany^others who have distinguished themselves in this 
useful field. It is such criticism only, as has for its object to mutilate, and ex- 
plain away the scriptures, and to shape their doctrines in accommodation to 
human feelings and views, that I mean to reprobate. 



S9 

is the only foundation of good hope to men; if there is no 
other name by which men must or can be saved; if forgive- 
ness of sin and justification unto life can be obtained, only 
through the merits of his sacrifice, and by faith in his blood; 
is it a light thing to reject this doctrine, to refuse this way 
of pardon and of life, and to trust for acceptance with God 
and everlasting happiness, on any other ground? 

Suppose a church founded on these doctrines, in the act of 
celebrating the death of the Lord Jesus at his table. They 
unite in worshipping the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; in 
adoring Christ as their almighty Saviour, and gratefully 
ascribing the forgiveness of their sins, their acceptance 
with God, and all their immortal hopes entirely to his propi- 
tiatory sacrifice; and in devoutly acknowledging the Holy 
Spirit as their Sanctifier and Comforter, and praising Him 
as the efficient Producer in them of all holy affections and 
consolations. Can a Unitarian, who denies all these doc- 
trines, have communion with the church in this solemn and 
interesting scene. Must it not be to him a scene of abomin- 
able idolatry; a most delusive and flagitious perversion of the 
sacred institution? — In regard to the whole, the doctrines and 
the worship founded upon them, is he not an unbeliever? 

Let us change the scene. Suppose a church of Unitari- 
ans, (say, if you please, low Unitarians) at the table of the 
holy supper. They refuse to worship the Son and the Holy 
Ghost: they deny the divinity and atonement of Jesus Christ, 
and remember him only as a good man, who "suffered and 
died in the best of causes," but **in the occasion and manner 
of whose death there was nothing very different from that of 
others who suffered and died after him in the same cause;" 
and they professedly rely for eternal life, not on the Sav- 
iour's merits, but on their own "good moral lives," and de- 
clare, "that all hopes founded on any thing else are merely 
imaginary." What has an orthodox christian to do with 
such a communion? Can he join in divesting his adored 
Saviour of his glory, — in profaning the sacred memorial of 
his dying love, — in making "Ms blood an unholy thing!" 

We assume, we claim no dictation, no control over other 
men's consciences. We invade not, we wish not to invade 



40 

or to abridge the natural, civil, or religious rights of aay 
man or class of men. We rejoice in the civil, and still morG 
in the religious freedom of our' country. We acknowledge 
the right of every one to think for himself, and to form his 
own opinions of truth; a right, however, for the unperverted 
exercise of which every one is solemnly accountable to God. 

While we allow this right to others, and claim it for our- 
selves, we hold it to be perfectly consistent, and our bounden 
duty, openly and faithfully to declare and inculcate what we 
believe to be divine truth; firmly and earnestly, jet candidly 
and benevolently, to contend for what we receive as the 
faith once delivered to the saints: and to employ all scrip- 
tural means to counteract and explode such opinions as we 
deem erroneous, — such, especially, as we believe to be utterly 
subversive of the gospel; and to convince and warn all peo- 
ple, cf their delusive nature and their destructive tendency. 
And we think it neither charitable nor reasonable, — we hold it, 
indeed, entirely incompatible with our liberty of conscience, and 
our right of private judgment, that we should be required to 
think favourably of such opinions, to refrain from beaiing our 
testimony against them, or to regard them as no obstruction to 
christian fellowship. 

We are not so happy as to have the belief, which you so 
confidently express, that, "the great principles, for which 
the apostles contended, are now received with little dispute 
in christian communities." We "sincerely believe" on the 
contrary, that those doctrines were the very same, for which 
we are now contending. We believe that the Gospel of John 
and his first and second Epistles, all which were written af- 
ter controversies arose among professed christians, concern- 
ing the person and character of Jesus Christ, had particular 
respect to those controversies; and were particularly design- 
ed to establish the faith of the churches, in both his true Di- 
vinity and humanity. We believe that the Epistles of Paul 
to the Romans and Galatians, had for their primary and 
principle object, the vindication and establishment of the car- 
dinal doctrine of justification, "freely by grace through the 
redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth 
tfc be a propitiation, through faith in his blood;" in opposi- 



4i 

tion to such professed christians as denied this doctrine, and 
*<went about to establish their owii righteousness;" and that 
the divine dignity, the high priesthood and expiatory sacri- 
fice of Christ, and salvation oniy through his one offering 
for^sin, and by faith in him, constitute the subject of his erf- 
tire Epistle to the Hebrews: We believe, in a word, that 
these are the very doctrines of the cross, which were "to 

THE JEWS A STUMBLING BLOCK, AND TO THE GREEKS 

foolishness;" and we deeply deplore the affecting fact, of 
Which we see most abundant evidence, that there is, in our 
own age, and in our own country* the same spirit of hostility 
to these doctrines, which was so awfully and fatally display- 
ed in the days of the apostle3. With deep impressions, and 
the most painful emotions, we remember the solemn word, 
"Unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders 
disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a 
stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which 
stumble at the word, being disobedient.* 9 

The event of the present controversy, I would submissive- 
ly leave with Him, whose truth, and whose glory are deeply 
concerned in it. Most sincerely do I lament the uncommon 
animosities which have been excited, and the uncommon 
manner in which they have been displayed. True, it has 
always been the fact, that when errour has been exposed, the 
passions which have clung to it have been disturbed; but it 
most solemnly concerns us all, on the one side and on the 
other, to look well to our tempers, to our words, and to our 
actions, — remembering that we are erelong to stand together 
before the judgment seat of Christ* Notwithstanding, how- 
ever, the present excitement, and the heavy guilt incurred by 
many, it is devoutly to be hoped that shortly the passions of 
the day will subside, and give place to serious reflection 
and candid inquiry; that people will consider the questions 
in debate, as being of a nature too momentous, to be hastily 
decided by private attachments or antipathies, by party spir- 
it or prejudice — by any thing indeed other than reason and 
conscience and scripture; and will attend to these questions, 
with all the earnestness which their everlasting importance 
6 



4.2 

demands, with humble dependence on the ..Spirit jof grace* 
and with sincere and unfailing desires to know and obey th«. 
truth. 

With fervent prayers for a consummation so happy, and 
for your joy as well as my own in the event, I am, 
Rev. and dear Sir, 
Yours, with sincere affection and respect, 

S. WORCESTER* 
:8alcm 9 August 26, 1815. 



POSTSCRIPT. 

Dr. Watts, in the preface to his Glory of Christ, one of his 
latest publications, says, "Though we learn from Scripture 
that true axd proper deity is ascribed to the father, 
the so:sr, and the holy spirit, and they are represented 
often in scripture as distinct personal agents; yet after all our 
inquiries and prayers, we may be still nyuch at a loss to de-* 
scribe exactly, wherein this distinct personality consists, and 
what is the distinct communion of each of them in the divine 
nature." — <*I can assure them [his readers] that there is not 
one sentence in all these discourses, but what is very consist- 
ent with a fimi belief of the divinity of Christ, and a just 
and sincere concern for the most eminent and glorious truths 
of the gospel, as they are professed by Protestants among us 
against the Socinian and Jliian errours." — In these views, so 
far as appears, Dr. Watts remained to the last. 

Respecting Dr. Barnard, I have only to reaffirm what J 
aaid before. 

A pamphlet by a LAYMAN has come to hand, just in sea- 
son to receive as much attention as it seems to require. The 
pampldet bears this title, "Are you a Christian or a Calvinist.9 
Or, Do you prefer tfie authority of Christ to that of the Genevan 
Reformer?" Whatever in this publication concerns me, and 
the cause which I have espoused, has been almost entirely 
anticipated, and, as I believe, sufficiently answered, in tht 
foregoing Letter, 

The title, the spirit, the whole tenour, import that Calvin^ 
;§ts are not Christians, I am not in the least angered by 



42 

this; nor do I apprehend that any of my brethren implicated, 
will think that they would do well to be angry, or will feel 
themselves called upon to express, even "a virtuous indigna- 
tion." If the Layman and his party really believe that Cal* 
vinists are not christians, they have my full and most hearty 
consent to declare it with the utmost freedom; nor will I con* 
tend with them at all about their consistency in claiming to 
he thought most charitable, in entertaining and expressing 
this opinion, and in continually denouncing us as being ut- 
terly devoid of charity. 

"I expect," says this unknown writer, the "intolerant among 
the disciples of Calvin will be ready to consign a layman to the 
fate of <unregenerate reprobates ,' who shall dare to intermeddle 
with the sacred mysteries of their faith." "The gentleman, I 
believe, need give himself no concern on this score. "Their 
master," he proceeds to say, "would never suffer any one 
to question his doctrines under pain of the fagot. He wished 
to dethrone the Pope, only that he might put the tiara on his 
own head. His disciples in this country, and in this alone, 
retain the same spirit." — These are the first sentences. To 
these I will add a quotation from the 6th page, "The orthodox 
believe in Calvin and the Westminster Assembly,* the liberal 
christians in Christ and his apostles. The former are Calvin- 
ists — the latter are christians. Yet so intolerant and unrea-r 
sonable are the party who have arrogated to themselves the 
title of orthodox, that they venture to deny the name and title 
of christians to the followers of Christ, and apply it exclus- 
ively to the followers of Calvin, and of human councils, as- 
semblies, and creed-makers," Those who have not the op- 
portunity or inclination to read the pamphlet, may rely on 
these quotations, not only as a fair specimen, but as contain- 
ing the sum and substance, the pith and marrow of the whole. 
Such is the "document" which this writer is careful to let us 
know it was his intention "to furnish" to be deposited in the 
archives "of our historical societies and the alcoves of our 
colleges:" a monument more durable than brass, to proclaim 
and exemplify to the generations to come, the talent and taste, 
the truth and argument, the correctness and wisdom, the dig- 
nity and urbanity, the meekness and modesty, the camloar and 



44 

fehanty of the liberal men of Massachusetts "in the beginning 
of the nineteenth century." 

The Layman states, or intimates, more than once, that 1 
deny, and erideavour to prove, that the Reviewer did not 
charge the iiberal clergy and party with "hypocritical con- 
cealment^' and upon this he bestows many words. I said, 
however, explicitly, "I mean not to deny that the Reviewer 
does charge ministers, and perhaps others, of the party called 
liberal, with want of openness and clearness^ nay, With design* 
ed concealment and culpable disguise." 

P. 12. the Layman says, "We agree with Dr. Worcester, 
and we are happy to agree with him in some points, that 
south of Massachusetts there is very little freedom of reli- 
gious opinion. Men must think as they are bid, not as they 
believe." How the gentleman came to know this to be my 
opinion, I will not attempt to divine; but sure I am, he can 
find not the slightest intimation of any thing of this sort, not 
the most distant reference to the people south of Massachu- 
setts in my Letter. 

For an answer to the main scope and argument of his 
pamphlet, I beg leave to refer the Layman to pp. 1 1 — 14* 
22 — 25, and 28 — 40 of the foregoing Letter. 

What is principally to be apprehended by me and my breth- 
ren, of danger to ourselves and our cause from the Layman's 
attempt is, that we shall not duly remember, that "charity 
rejoiceth not in iniquity; but rejoiceth in tJie truth." We have 
strong temptation to rejoice in this publication. This shower 
of "poisoned arrows" has not reached us. I confess, however, 
I like the Layman's openness. He conceals neither his 
sentiments, nor his spirit, his party prejudices nor his private 
enmities, his designs nor his resources; — nothing but his 
name. 

"Alack; 'tis he! why he was met even now 
"As mad as the vex'd 6ea: singing aloud; 
"Crown'd with rank fumiter, and furrow weeds, 
"With harlocks, hemlock, nettles, cuckoo-flower, 
"Darnel, and all the idle weeds that grow 
"In our sustaining corn." 

— * • "That close aspect of his 

♦"Does shew the mood of a much troubled breast." 



REMARKS 



THE REV. DR. WORCESTER'S 



SECOND 



LETTER TO MR. CHANNING. 



w 



AMERICAN FNITARIANISM. 



BIT 

WILLIAM E. CHANNING, 

| Minister of the Church of Christ in Federal Sheet. 



BOSTON : 

PRINTER AN© PUBLISHED BY WELLS AND LILLY. 
1815. 



REMARKS, te 

Those who have read the second letter addressed 
to me by Dr. Worcester, will not be surprised at the 
appearance of these remarks. I intended to leave 
the controversy to the decision of the publick, who, 
I thought, Were in possession of all the materials 
requisite to the formation of a correct judgment. 
But Dr. Worcester has called on me to retract what 
he pronounces a " flagrant misstatement" of an im- 
portant part of his letter ; and he has done this with 
a solemnity, which hardly permits me to observe the 
silence on which I had resolved. These remarks will 
relate primarily to that point, but I shall not restrain 
myself from offering observations on other parts of 
his letter. 

Dr. Worcester has complained with much earnest- 
ness, that I have imputed to him, in my former re- 
marks, a " bad spirit and intention." To this I 
answer, that I really did consider his letter as very 
unworthy of him as a christian and a christian min- 
ister. I did think, that if the principles of his letter 
could be reduced to practice, every Unitarian would 
be driven from the church, and every minister of 
Unitarian sentiments would be driven from the pul- 
pit. I did think, that he discovered a strange in- 
sensibility towards his brethren, whose moral purity 
had been so wantonly assailed in the Review of the 
Panoplist. I also acknowledge, that I did not dis- 
cover any marks of that affection and respect to- 
wards myself, of which he speaks in his second letter. 
Believing that his remarks directly tended to divide 
the church, and to expose a respectable body of 
christians to reproach and injurious treatment, I 



spoke of this tendency with plainness, but without 
bitterness or anger. Whether my interpretation of 
Dr. Worcester's letter, in these respects, was unau- 
thorized, I cheerfully leave to the decision of those 
who have read it. My own impressions have coin- 
cided with those of all around me ; and I cannot 
believe, that I have not one friend of a candid mind, 
and of sufficient ability to decide on the obvious im- 
port of a letter written in our native tongue. 

Dr. Worcester, however, disclaims the feelings 
and intentions which I have ascribed to him. He 
professes to have been governed by respect and af- 
fection towards me, and by a spirit of forbearance, 
kindness, tenderness, and undissembled good will 
towards his brethren. That Dr. Worcester is sin- 
cere in reporting what now appears to him to have 
been the state of his mind during the composition of 
his first letter, I am far from denying. But on a 
subject like this, memory is sometimes treacherous ; 
and I confess I cannot shake off the conviction, that 
some improper feelings, perhaps unsuspected by Dr. 
Worcester, occasionally guided his pen. But I mean 
not to pursue this point. I have not the least dispo- 
sition to attribute to Dr. Worcester any intentions 
which he disclaims. I had much rather believe, that 
his style is unhappy, than that his temper is evil. 
Most sincerely do 1 wish, that his heart may be a 
stranger to every unworthy sentiment, that his life 
may be adorned with every virtue, and be crowned 
with every blessing. 

THE CHARGE OF " FLAGRANT MISSTATEMENT." 

I now come to my great object. In my former 
remarks, I observed, that Dr. Worcester " has so- 
" lemnly and publickly given all his influence to the 
" opinion, that Ave, and all who agree with us on the 
41 subject of the Trinity, are to be disowned by the 



44 church of Christ. The obvious import of the con- 
" eluding part of his letter, (and it is the obvious 
44 import, and not a strained and circuitous interpre- 
44 tation which I regard,) may be thus expressed. 
44 4 Every man who cannot admit as a doctrine of 
44 scripture, the great doctrine of three persons in 
44 one God, which I and other orthodox christians 
44 embrace, believes an opposite gospel, rejects the 
44 true o-ospel, despises the authority of Jesus Christ, 
44 is, of course, a man wholly wanting in true piety, 
44 and without christian virtue, and may, in perfect 
64 consistency with christian love, be rejected as un- 
44 worthy the name of a christian.' " On this repre- 
sentation of his sentiments, Dr. Worcester thus re- 
marks, " Your statement of the import of the 
44 concluding part of my letter is most palpably 
44 incorrect and unjust. And though I attribute this 
44 incorrectness and injustice not to any injurious in- 
44 tention, but to that habit of thinking and feeling of 
44 which I have before taken notice ; yet, after what 
44 1 have now stated, I think I have a right to call 
44 upon you, and I do solemnly call upon you, to retract 
44 this flagrant misstatement. I know, indeed, you 
44 have given it to be understood, that you shall not 
44 write again ; but, Sir, the publick disputant, who 
44 makes this resolve, ought to be careful, not merely 
44 not to put down aught in malice, but to write 
44 nothing which justice to his opponent and to the 
44 cause of truth — nothing which the sacred princi- 
44 pies of Christianity will require him to retract." 

This is the charge, which has again brought me 
before the publick, the charge of palpable incorrect- 
ness and injustice, and of flagrant misstatement. I now 
intend fairly and fully to meet it. I intend to show, 
that in giving this interpretation, I followed the na- 
tural meaning of Dr. Worcester's words, that I put 
no violence on his language, and that no other sense 



would have offered itself to an unprejudiced mind. 
I shall state the passages which led to the repre- 
sentation which I nave formed, beginning with those 
which are least decisive, as these first present them- 
selves in the letter, and requesting the reader to 
form his judgment, not from a part, but from the 
whole which shall be presented to him. 

In page 24, of Dr. Worcester's letter, I found the 
following quotation from scripture, with the subjoined 
remark : " St. Peter says, * There were false pro- 
" phets also among the people, even as there snail 
" be false teachers among you, who privily shall 
44 bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord 
" that bought them, and bring upon themselvea 
44 swift destruction.' If this language sound harsh 
44 and unfashionable," Dr. Worcester continues, 44 1 
44 trust, Sir, you will have the goodness not to im- 
44 pute the fault to me; or that you will not on account 
44 of any unpleasantness in the language, refuse to 
44 give attention to the momentous sentiment contain- 
44 ed in it." I did consider this text of scripture, 
followed by this remark, as intended by Dr. Wor- 
cester to be applied to my brethren ana to myself, 
and to hold us up to the community as false teachers, 
who have brought in damnable heresies, who have 
denied the Lord that bought us, and who are bringing 
on ourselves swift destruction. I believed that every 
reader would give this application to the passage, 
and that some would be confirmed by it in denying 
to all Unitarian ministers the christian character. 
Dr. Worcester has frankly acknowledged the impro- 
priety of the remark which follows the text; and I 
introduce it now, not for the sake of casting on him 
the slightest reproach, but simply to state the im- 
pression which it naturally communicated, at the 
time when my remarks were written. 

In page 24, Dr. Worcester speaks of 44 the doo 
« trines on which we differ," as 44 doctrines which 



" immediately affect the very foundations of our 
44 faith;" and he adds, that " a true faith is the vital 
44 principle of all holy practice, and of all the works 
44 which are good and acceptable in the sight of 
" God." I understood this passage as strongly inti- 
mating, that Unitarian principles shake the very foun- 
dation of all holy practice, and of all good works. 

In page 24, I met the following remarkable pas- 
sage : " The God whom you worship, is different 
" from ours" and a little below, " if we are wrong 
44 in regard to the object of our worship, we can 
44 hardly be right in any part of our religion." I 
understood this passage as strongly intimating, that 
the whole religion of Unitarians is rendered worth- 
less, by their departure from the 44 orthodox," on the 
subject of the Trinity. 

Page 29, 1 met the following passage, which seem- 
ed to me to admit but one construction. Dr. Wor- 
cester is speaking of the different schemes of Mr. 
Belsham, and of " orthodox christians;" and he says, 
44 One or the other of these schemes must be what 
44 St. Paul denominates 4 another gospel,' and against 
44 which and its abettors he solemnly pronounces 
44 his apostolick anathema." Which of these two 
schemes Dr. Worcester intended to mark out as 
44 another gospel," is a question which no reader of 
his letter will wish me to discuss. Who doubts that 
it was Mr. Belsham's ? Against this scheme then, 
and against its abettors, the apostolick curse is pro- 
nounced. This I certainly understood to be Dr. 
Worcester's meaning, and I see not what other 
sense the passage will bear. I also had not a doubt 
that Dr. Worcester in representing the abettors of 
Mr. Belsham's scheme as accursed, intended to repre- 
sent them as wholly destitute of piety and christian 
virtue, for this I naturally conceived was implied in 
tha curse of God. Dr. Worcester indeed says, that 



he did not draw this inference, but it seemed to ine 
too plain to need the formality of a deduction. I be- 
lieve, that this will be granted by ail to be the plain 
sense of his words — But it may be said that this pas- 
sage only includes the followers of Mr. Belsham. 
Let the reader observe Dr. Worcester's phraseolo- 
gy. He does not say folloiuers, but abettors. Let the 
reader then look back to pages 10 and 11 of Dr. 
Worcester's letter. He will there find Dr. Worces- 
ter very strongly intimating that the liberal party gen- 
erally are partakers in the deeds and guilt of Mr. 
Belsham, because they bear no decided testimony 
against them. The natural import, then, of this 
passage is, not only that Mr. Belsham in particular, 
but that the liberal party in general, fall under the 
apostolick curse. But the next passage is still more 
decisive. 

Page 32, I met the following passage. "Is it 
" a violation of the great law of love for the friends of 
44 truth to decline communion with its rejecters ? We 
44 have nothing to do here with slight diversities of 
44 opinion ; with differences about modes or forms, or 
44 inconsiderable points of faith or practice. Our con- 
44 cern is with differences of a radical and fundamental 
44 nature ; such as exist between orthodox Christians 
44 and Unitarians of all degrees, even down to the 
44 creed of Mr. Belsham : for to this point you have 
44 yourself fairly reduced the present question. Yes, 
44 Sir, the simple point here at issue is, Vv hether it 
" be a violation of the law of love, for believers in 
44 the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, to separate from 
44 believers in another and an opposite gospel ? If 
44 yours is the true Gospel, then ours is another ; if 
"mr$ is the true Gospel, then yours is another." I 
clearly understood Dr. Worcester, in this passage, as 
saying, that the differences between 44 orthodox Chris- 
44 iians" and Unitarians are radical and fundamental, 



and that / and my brethren and Unitarians of all 
degrees hold " another gospel," and even an opposite 
gospel to the true. I understood too, that as he 
considered Mr. Belsham and his abettors as accursed 
because they had " another gospel," he intended to 
represent me, and all who agree with me in rejecting 
the 44 orthodox" doctrine of the Trinity, as also falling 
under the apostle's curse, because he represents our 
gospel not only as " another" but as opposite to the 
true gospel. I also understood his pointed interro- 
gations as strongly teaching, that the "friends of 
truth" (a phrase never doubtful in Dr. Worcester's 
mouth) may separate themselves from us and decline 
communion with us, without any u violation of Chris- 
tian love." What other interpretation this passage 
can bear, I confess myself as yet unable to conceive. 

Page 33, I met with a passage which also seemed 
to me very plain and decisive. Dr. Worcester asks, 
44 Would it conduce more to the promotion of truth, 
44 for the believers in the true gospel, to hold fellow- 
44 ship with the believers in another gospel, than to 
44 separate from them ? We have seen in what way 
44 only this fellowship can be maintained. If it is to 
44 be maintained, the principal doctrines of the gospel 
44 must cease to be clearly preached ; divine worship 
44 must cease to be conducted on principles distin- 
* 4 guishingly Christian, &c. &c. But is this the way, 
44 Sir, to promote the truth in the church and the 
44 world ? Is it not rather the way to extinguish the 
44 light of the ministry, the light of the church, the light 
44 of the world, to throw back the children of light 
44 into darkness and the shadoiv of death, and to leave 
44 the prince of darkness to triumph in an unlimited and 
44 undisturbed empire ?" I thought this passage very 
plain. I understood Dr. Worcester as saying, that 
were 44 orthodox Christians" to wave in their preach- 
ing and in publick worship those peculiarities which 



10 

are disapproved by Unitarians, the light of the gos* 
pel would be put out, the ministry would be useless, 
Christians would fall back into the shadow of death, 
and Satan would rule the minds of men without any 
limitation or any disturbance to his power. In other 
words, I understood Dr. Worcester as saying, that 
where a Unitarian ministry and worship are estab- 
lished, the minds of men are altogether unenlightened 
by the gospel, and are abandoned wholly to the sway 
of the prince of darkness. This is indeed a horrible 
sentiment. — But as yet I see no explanation of the 
passage hy which it can be avoided. 

I now come to the last passage which I shall quote, 
found in page 35. " Sir, the differences, which exist 
44 between the Unitarians and the orthodox christians 
" are certainly of a nature to demand the most seri- 
44 ous and earnest attention. They concern most 
44 directly and essentially the glory of God, the hon- 
44 our of the Saviour, the welfare of the church, and 
44 the salvation of men. In comparison with these, 
44 the difference between Dissenters and Episcopa- 
44 lians, between Paedo-baptists and Anti-paedo-bap- 
44 tists, are matters of mere feature and complexion. 
44 Utterly in vain is the attempt to put these differen- 
4; ces out of light, to conceal their magnitude and 
44 momentous consequences ; or by a raised cry of 
44 bigotry, illiberality, and intolerance, to divert the 
44 publick attention from them. They must and will 
44 be fearlessly discussed and seriously considered ; 
44 and ministers, and churches, professed christians, 
44 and all others must and will be brought to the 
44 solemn decision — whether they will be for Christ, 
44 or against him : whether they will receive and hold 
44 fast his truth, or despise and reject it ; whether they 
; - will bow to his authority, and trust in his grace, or 
44 refuse to have him to reign over thsm, and contemn 
44 his salvation." This passage seemed to me per- 
fectly plain when I wrote my remarks, and I am yet 



il 

unable to give it a different interpretation. Dr. 
Worcester speaks in this passage of Unitarians in 
the broadest sense of the word, of Unitarians as op- 
posed to " orthodox christians," t. e. of all who re- 
ject the " orthodox" doctrine of the Trinity. He 
says that the differences between this class and the. 
" orthodox" concern most directly and essentially the 
salvation of men ; that these differences, in spite of 
clamour and concealment, will be fearlessly discuss- 
ed; and that in deciding on these differences, in 
choosing between these parties, men will in fact de- 
cide whether they will be for Christ, will receive and 
bow to his truth, or will be against him, will despise 
his truth and salvation, and refuse to have him to 
reign over him. I thought this passage too obvious 
to admit dispute. I understood Dr. Worcester aa 
charging Unitarians of all degrees with contempt 
and rejection of the authority of Jesus Christ, and 
of course, with entire destitution of piety and chris- 
tian virtue. 

I have selected several passages from Dr. Worces- 
ter's letter, which appear to me to vindicate entirely 
the statement which I made of his sentiments. Let 
me now ask the reader to examine them in the con- 
nexion in which they stand. He will find nothing 
thrown in by Dr. Worcester to restrain their 
natural import ; not one icord expressive of charity 
for Unitarians of any class ; not one word to soften 
the severity of his censure. His whole reasonings 
and interrogations appeared to me to have one bear- 
ing, to breathe one spirit, and left me without a doubt 
as to his real meaning. 

I can further say that there was nothing in the 
state of my mind unfavourable to a fair interpreta- 
tion of Dr. Worcester's letter. I regarded him as a 
man of candour and moderation. I expected nothing 
like exclusion and denunciation. Seldom have I 
known a more cruel disappointment than in reading 



12 

his first letter. To this I can add, that among those 
with whom I have conversed, I have found but one 
sentiment in regard to his meaning. I cannot there- 
fore believe, that my prejudices have blinded me, 
and that I am chargeable with " palpable and flagrant 
misstatement." 

Dr. Worcester however assures me that I have 
misrepresented him ; and I have no disposition to 
question the sincerity, with which he now declares, 
that he did not intend to communicate the senti- 
ments which I ascribed to him. I cannot indeed 
avoid the belief, that his recollections on this point 
are imperfect, and that in the hurry of his thoughts 
and feelings, he was not so watchful over his mo- 
tives as he now imagines. With this, however, I have 
no concern. I am satisfied with having shown, that 
my interpretation was natural, and indeed unavoida- 
ble, and I cheerfully record the protest of Dr. Wor- 
cester against this interpretation. I am pleased to 
witness the sensibility with which he repels the 
charge of denying to Anti-Trinitarians all piety 
and virtue. I observe in this a degree of candour 
of which I could not discern the faintest ray in his 
first letter. 

dr. Worcester's concession in favour of dr. 

CLARKE. 

There is another part of Dr. Worcester's letter 
which also gave me some pleasure. I refer to that 
part, in which he expresses some charitable senti- 
ments towards Dr. Samuel Clarke. He tells us, 
" that he is by no means prepared to say that every 
" one who adopts Dr. Clarke's views of the Trinity 
" rejects the true gospel, embraces another, and is 
" devoid of christian faith and virtue." Now if h» 
will act consistently with these sentiments, and with 
the charitable dispositions which he seems inclined 
to exercise towards the author of " Bible News," 



13 

the controversy between us will soon end. As far 
as I understand the prevalent sentiments among libe- 
ral christians in this quarter of our country, they 
appear to me substantially to agree with the views 
of these excellent men ; and were we required to 
select human leaders in religion, I believe, that we 
should range ourselves under their standard in pre- 
ference to any other. Dr. Clarke believed, that the 
Father alone is the Supreme God, and that Jesus 
Christ is not the Supreme God, but derived his be- 
ing, and all his power and honours from the Father, 
even from an act of the Father's power and will. 
He maintains, that as the scriptures have not taught 
us the manner in which the Son derived his existence 
from his Father, it is presumptuous to affirm, that 
the Son was created, or, that there was a time when 
he did not exist. On these subjects the word of 
God has not given us light, and therefore we ought 
to be silent. The author of " Bible News," in like 
manner affirms, that the Father only is the Supreme 
God, that Jesus is a distinct being from God, and that 
he derives every thing from his Father. He has 
some views relating to the "proper Sonship" of 
God, which neither liberal nor "orthodox" chris- 
tians generally embrace. But the prevalent senti- 
ments of liberal christians seem to me to accord sub- 
stantially with the systems I have above described. 
Like Dr. Clarke, the majority of this class feel that 
the scriptures have not taught the mode of Christ's 
derivation. They therefore do not call Christ a crea- 
ture, but leave the subject in the obscurity in which 
they find it, carrying with them, however, an im- 
pression, that the scriptures ascribe to Jesus the 
character of Son of God in a peculiarly high sense, 
and in a sense in which it is ascribed to no other be- 
ing. With respect to the atonement, the great 
body of liberal christians seem to me to accord pre- 



14 

cisely with the author of " Bible News," or rather 
both agree very much with the profound Butler. 
Both agree, that Jesus Christ, by his sufferings and 
intercession, obtains forgiveness for sinful men, or 
that on account, or in consequence of what Christ 
has done and suffered, the punishment of sin is aver- 
ted from the penitent, and blessings, forfeited by 
sin. are bestowed. On the question which is often 
asked, how the death of Christ has this blessed in- 
fluence, they generally think that the scriptures have 
given us little light, and that it is the part of wisdom 
to accept the kind appointment of God, without con- 
structing theories for which the materials must be 
chiefly borrowed from our own imagination. 

My motive for making the preceding statement is 
no other than a desire to contribute whatever may- 
be in my power to the peace of our churches. I 
have hoped that by this representation, some portion 
of the charity which has been expressed towards 
Dr. Clarke, and the author of " Bible News," may be 
extended towards their Unitarian brethren ; and that 
thus the ecclesiastical division which is threatened 
may be averted. Let it not, however, be imagined 
that I or my friends are anxious on our own account 
to extort from the " orthodox" an acknowledgment, 
that possibly we hold the true gospel, and are not 
" devoid of christian faith and virtue." We regard 
other christians as brethren, but can in no degree 
recognize them as superiours in the church of our 
common master. We do not dread the censures 
which they may pass on our honest opinions : We 
rejoice that we have a higher judge, whose truth it 
is our labour to learn, obey, and maintain, and whose 
favour will be distributed by other principles than 
those which prevail in a prejudiced and shortsighted 
world. But, whilst we mean not to be suitors to 
our brethren ; we are willing and desirous, by any 



15 

fair representations, to save them from a course, 
which, as we firmly believe, will be injurious to 
their own characters, injurious to their brethren, un- 
friendly to the diffusion of the gospel, and highly 
offensive to our common and benevolent master. 

Happy should I be, if by any representation or 
any honourable concessions on our part, our churches 
could be preserved from the shock which threatens 
them. But on this point Dr. Worcester's last letter 
is as discouraging as the first. He indeed dis- 
claims the intention of denying to Anti-trinitarians 
all piety and virtue. But the tendency of his letters 
must be obvious to the humblest understanding, and 
I doubt not that many carry from them the impres- 
sion, that Unitarians criminally reject the gospel, and 
ought to be driven from the church. This effect* 
whether intended or not, is produced, and for this 
we hold Dr. Worcester responsible. 

THE METHODS OP RENDERING UNITARIANS ODIOUS. 

In his last letter, one great object seems to be, to 
paint in the strongest colours the differences between 
Unitarians and Trinitarians, and to produce the most 
unfavourable impression in regard to the former. To 
effect this object, he again and again brings forward 
the views of the lowest Unitarians, and culls the 
most offensive passages from the works of Dr. 
Priestley and Mr. Belsham. I know that he throws 
in a caution against the inference, that all Unitarians 
are responsible for these views : but I am persuaded, 
that the effect on common readers is, that they iden- 
tify this whole class of Christians with Mr. Belsham 
and Dr. Priestley. Now to this I object. It is well 
known that every denomination of Christians is bro- 
ken into various subdivisions. For instance, among 
those who adopt the great principles of Calvin, are 
Sandemanians, Antinomians, Fatalists, and I may 
add, Universalists. Suppose now that in delineating 



16 

Calvinism, I should lay the chief stress on these 
peculiarities. Or suppose, that I should ransack the 
writings of Trinitarians, should collect all their crude 
notions and wild explanations of the Trinity, and 
should bring forward the horrible language, in which 
some have spoken of God's wrath burning against 
riis Son, and of the blood of Jesus appeasing the fury 
of the Father. Would not Calvinists and Trinita- 
rians pronounce me unfair, if by such methods I 
should lead common readers to imagine, that they were 
generally favourable to these offensive sentiments, 
it is an indisputable fact, that Dr. Priestley and Mr. 
Belsham have, comparatively, few followers among 
the Anti-trinitarian clergy of this country. For my- 
self, I have read very few of the writings of these gen- 
tlemen, and chiefly from want of sympathy with their 
General views. Their theology appears to me very 
efective, and their theory of materialism and of neces- 
sity, which they have attempted to incorporate with 
their theology, seems to me unfriendly to a sense of 
responsibility, and to elevation of moral feeling. Are 
we then to be confounded with the lower Unitarians, 
because we happen to accord with them in the great 
point, that the Father alone is the supreme God, 
and that Jesus Christ derives from him his being and 
all his powers. — Do any ask me on what ground I 
admit those, whose theology is so defective, to be 
Christians? I answer; precisely on the ground on 
which I acknowledge the Christian character of 
another denomination, whose additions to the simple 
gospel seem to me at least as exceptionable as the 
deficiencies of their brethren. But what did I say ? 
that / admit these men to be Christians ! They need 
no admission of mine. Professing Jesus to be their 
head, and exhibiting in their lives a reverence for his 
gospel, they have a place in Christ's church which I did 
not give, and which neither I nor any other man can 
take awar. 



If 

Another method of awakening publick feeling 
against the Unitarians, is to represent them as obliged 
by their sentiments to give up the doctrine of the 
atonement. It is indeed very true, that Unitarians 
say nothing about infinite atonement, and they shud- 
der when they hear, what Dr. Worcester seems to 
assert, that the ever blessed God suffered and died 
on the cross. They reject these representations, 
because they find not one passage in scripture 
which directly asserts them, or gives them sup- 
port. Not one word do we hear from Christ or his 
Apostles of an infinite atonement. In not one solitary 
text, is the efficacy of Christ's death in obtaining for- 
giveness, ascribed to his being the Supreme God. 
All this is theology of man's making, and strongly 
marked with the hand of its author. But the doc- 
trine of the atonement, taken in the broad sense which 
I have before stated, is not rejected by Unitarians. 
In my former letter, I adduced two distinguished 
Unitarians, Dr. Clarke, and the author of Bible News, 
in whose valuable writings this doctrine is stated 
and maintained. Dr. Worcester does not deny 
the fact, but to my astonishment has attempted to 
escape its force, by maintaining that these gentlemen 
do not deny the essential divinity of Jesus Christ, and 
are therefore not obliged to renounce the atonement. 
What! Dr. Clarke and Mr. Noah Worcester do not 
deny the essential divinity of Jesus Christ ! I assure Dr. 
Worcester then, that neither I nor my friends deny it, 
and that, according to his own language, we are under 
no necessity of denying the doctrine of the atonement. 
The fact is, that some of the best works on the atone- 
ment have come from the pens of Unitarians. Mr. 
Tomkins, one of the most zealous Unitarians of his age, 
and I believe a sufferer for his principles, published a 
well known treatise, called " Jesus Christ the Medi- 
* 4 ator," in which the doctrine of atonement is more 
strenuously insisted on, than even by Dr. Clarke and 
3 



18 

Mr. Noah Worcester. Not long ago, there was 
published in this country, I think under the patron- 
age of Trinitarians, a work on the atonement by 
Hampton, called " Candid Remarks on Dr. Taylor, 
&c." which, as I well recollect, appeared to me, when 
I read it, to be decidedly the production of an 
Unitarian. It contains not one word about an infinite 
atonement made by the Supreme God. The sentiments 
of the work, I think, accord in the main with the 
views of many Unitarians in this country. Unitari- 
anism, then, does not exclude the doctrine of atone- 
ment. 

Another method by which the publick feelings are 
to be awakened against Unitarians, is the frequent 
assertion, that they disbelieve the Trinity, because 
the doctrine is mysterious, and because they prefer 
reason to revelation, human wisdom to the wisdom 
of God. Dr. Worcester says to me, " The doctrine 
" of the Trinity the Unitarians utterly deny, not be- 
" cause there is no proof of it in the Scriptures, but 
" because it is a doctrine (as you repeatedly and em- 
" phatically pronounce) perplexing, mysterious, and 
" not to be understood." What will common readers 
infer from this, and from other passages in his letter ? 
Why, that we do not rest on scripture, as the ground 
of our rejection of this doctrine, or at least, that we do 
not consider the scriptures as very strongly opposed 
to the Trinity, and that we assail it chiefly with 
weapons furnished by reason. Now, as far as my 
knowledge of Unitarian writers extends, this impres- 
sion is altogether unfounded. We do indeed object 
to the Trinity, that, as it is often stated, it is an unin- 
telligible proposition ; and we say, what I presume 
Dr. W orcester will as freely say, that it is out of our 
power to believe a proposition of which we do not 
know the meaning. It is also true, that when the 
doctrine is stated, as it sometimes is, in words which 
we understand ; when for example we are told by 



19 

the pious Howe, that the three persons in God are 
three minds; we insist that it involves a palpable con- 
tradiction, and we argue precisely as the protestants 
do with the papists, that a doctrine involving a con- 
tradiction cannot be from God. But Unitarians 
never stop here. They always declare that Scrip- 
ture with one voice disowns the doctrine of the 
Trinity, and that of all the fictions of theologians, 
the doctrine of three persons in the one God, has 
perhaps the least countenance from the Bible. Their 
writings are filled with quotations from Scripture. 
Some of them, like Dr. Clarke's, consist almost 
entirely of texts arranged under proper heads. Uni- 
tarians believe, and constantly affirm, that no 
laboured comments and no critical skill are required, 
to teach common Christians the great truth, that the 
Father alone is the supreme God, and that Jesus 
Christ is a derived and dependent being ; and they 
believe and affirm, that the opposite sentiment is 
chiefly maintained by appeals to men's fears, and by ar- 
tificial excitement of their feelings. This is the ground 
taken by all the Unitarians whom I have known, 
and on this Scripture ground I profess myself to rest. 
I am not conscious of the least prejudice against the 
doctrine of the Trinity. My earliest prepossessions 
must have been in its favour. But in my youth, 
before I had read a book on the subject, the Scrip- 
tures suggested doubts of its truth, and by the study 
chiefly of the Scriptures, my doubts have grown up 
into a solid conviction. The Scriptures, in my view, 
are the strength of the Unitarian cause ; and I am 
persuaded, that they are continually extending it in 
opposition to the strongest influences of education. 
I have found from conversing with pious people of 
both sexes, that the Scriptures always gave them 
the idea, that God and Jesus Christ were distinct 
beings, and that Jesus derived his being and power 
irom God. They have sometimes told me, that they 



20 

have wished to resist this impression, that they have 
dreaded to depart from principles which were early 
instilled as essential, that they have shrunk from a 
doubt of the Trinity as from a sin ; but still the lan- 
guage of Scripture has forced them to doubt and 
disbelieve. This is the history of many minds ; and 
many, I am confident, have buried in silence anxious 
scruples, which they dared not clothe in words. 

I state this with great distinctness and strength, 
that I may repel and remove a common mistake 
among Christians, that we reject the Trinity because 
we cannot reconcile it with reason, although we can 
hardly help acknowledging it as a Scripture doctrine. 
It is not because we exalt reason above Scripture, 
but because we revere the Scriptures, because we 
fear God, that we maintain Unitarian principles. 
We dare not offer prayers to the Holy Ghost, 
because we find not one command, or one example 
of such worship, in the gospel of our Master; and we 
honour him too entirely to depart from his plain 
rules on so important a subject. We read too in 
the Scriptures such passages as these. " My Father 
is greater than I." "This is eternal life, that 
men may know thee the only true God, and Jesus 
Christ whom thou hast sent" " Of that day and 
hour knoweth no man, not the angels which are in 
heaven, neither the Son, but the father, the father 
only." " I can do nothing of myself." " My doctrine 
is not mine, but his who sent me. If any will do his 
will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of 
God, or whether I speak of myself " We hear these 
passages from the very lips of our honoured and 
beloved Lord ; and with these passages engraven on 
our minds, and supported by the whole current of 
Scripture, we dare not, we dare not approach Jesus 
Christ as the only living, the only true God. It is 
from reverence for his character and instructions, 
from fear of offending him, from a conscientiousness 



21 

which would prompt us to sacrifice all in his service 3 
that we offer him no homage, but in the character of 
the Son of the only living and true God. 

Another method of awakening the feelings of 
Christians on the subject of the Trinity, is to address 
their fears. It is common Avith Trinitarians, and Dr. 
Worcester has learned it, to say to people, " If the 
Trinity rests on the sure foundation of divine testi- 
mony, if Jesus Christ is essentially divine, &c. &c. is 
it a light thing to reject these doctrines, to refuse to Je- 
sus divine honours, &c. &c." Appeals of this kind, 
which are ordinarily connected with positive assertions 
of the truth of the Trinity, are worth a thousand argu- 
ments, and terrify into silence the doubts which lurk 
in many minds. I mourn that Christians should 
think so unworthily of Jesus, as to be moved by this 
language. This language evidently supposes, that 
Jesus, our merciful Saviour, overlooks the general 
temper of our minds, the general obedience of our 
lives, and, like a jealous sovereign, is prepared to 
punish every deficiency of homage to himself, how- 
ever unintentionally the tribute may be withheld, 
and however sincere and upright the heart which 
unconsciously withholds it. And is this the 
character of our merciful Lord ? Suppose that a 
human benefactor, of exalted endowments, were to 
confer on you some great blessing, and suppose that 
through ignorance of these endowments, you should 
not address him with all the terms of homage which 
they deserve, but should yet be sincerely grateful 
for the benefit he has conferred, and should love and 
imitate his excellence as far as it is known ? Think 
you, that he would spurn your imperfect tribute, and 
drive you from his presence ? And will Jesus, whose 
kindness was stronger than death, who bore so pa- 
tiently the low views of his disciples, will he cast 
from him those, who at the present day revere his 
authority, study his word, and labour to derive from 



22 

that pure fountain the very truths which he taught 
respecting himself, and respecting the service which 
is his due. I am persuaded, that at the last day the 
Trinitarian will be found in a great errour, and were 
I disposed, I could make as moving an appeal to his 
fears as Dr. Worcester can make to ours. But if 
there be a principle, which above all others shines 
resplendently in the sacred volume, it is this, that 
he who breathes the spirit and follows the steps of 
Jesus, however faint or defective be his views, will 
certainly enter into the joy of his Lord. 

Another method of awakening the feelings of the 
community against Unitarian sentiments is this. Dr. 
Worcester charges me again and again with attempt- 
ing studiously to conceal the differences between Uni- 
tarians and Trinitarians, as if our sentiments were 
too horrible to be brought fully and fairly to the 
light. He intimates that we "dread a develope- 
ment." And does Dr. Worcester really believe that 
we stand in awe of him. or his " orthodox" brethren ? 
We respect many of our opponents, but we dread 
none. Our love of peace, they may be assured, has 
another origin than fear or selfish views. It is from 
deep conviction, and not from the principle which 
Dr. Worcester insinuates, that I have stated once 
and again, that the differences between Unitarians 
and Trinitarians lie more in sounds than in ideas ; 
that a barbarous phraseology is the chief wall of 
partition between these classes of Christians; and that 
would Trinitarians tell us what they mean, their 
system would generally be found little else, than a 
mystical form of the Unitarian doctrine. These two 
classes of Christians appear to me to concur in 
receiving the most interesting and practical truths 
of the gospel. Both believe in one God of infinite 
perfection ; and we must remember, that it is this 
perfection of God, and not his unknown substance, 
which is the proper object of the Christian's love. 



23 

Both believe in the great doctrine, that eternal life is 
the free gift of God through Jesus Christ. Both 
learn from the lips and life of Jesus the same great 
principles of duty, the same exalted views of human 
perfection, and the same path to immortality. I 
could easily extend these points of agreement ; and 
what are the questions which divide them ? Why 
these; first, Whether the One God be three distinct 
subsistences,* or three persons, or three " somewhats"t 
called persons, as Dr. Worcester says, for want of a 
" better word ;" and secondly, Whether one of these 
three subsistences, or improperly called persons, 
formed a personal union with a human soul, so that 
the Infinite mind, and a human mind, each possessing 
its own distinct consciousness, became a complex per- 
son. Such are the points, or rather phrases of dif- 
ference between these Christians. And ought phra- 
ses like these, of which we find not a trace in the 
Bible, which cannot be defined by those who employ 
them, which convey to common minds no more mean- 
ing than words of an unknown tongue, and which 
present to the learned only flitting shadows of 
thought instead of clear and steady conceptions, to 
separate those who are united in the great principles 
which I have stated ? Trinitarians indeed are apt to 
think themselves at an immeasurable distance from 
Unitarians. The reason, I think, is, that they 
are surrounded with a mist of obscure phraseology. 
Were this mist dispersed, I believe that they would be 
surprised at discovering their proximity to the quar- 
ter of the Unitarians, and would learn that they had 
been wasting their hostility on a band of friends and 
brothers. Whenever Trinitarians begin to explain 
themselves, we find that their three persons vanish 
into three indefinable somethings, and that God suffered 

* Wardlaw. 

f This word has been used b^ Trinitarians in writing and conver- 
sation. 



24 

far us on the cross only by a figure or metaphysical 
fiction. Such is Trinitarianism, as it appears to my 
mind. In all this 1 may mistake, but I have no motive 
and certainly no desire to practise " concealment." 

THE SYSTEM OF EXCLUSION AND DENUNCIATION CONSI- 
DERED. 

The object of Dr. Worcester, in the representation, 
which I have now considered, seems to be, to prepare 
the " orthodox" for separation from their Unitarian 
brethren. His remarks all tend to teach them, that 
they ought to refuse communion with Unitarians as 
Christians, to deny them the character and name of 
Christians, to deny their title to the ordinances of the 
gospel ; in a word to disown them as brethren in 
Christ. On this point I shall now oner several ob- 
servations. — But first I beg that it may be dis- 
tinctly understood, that the zeal of liberal Chris- 
tians on this point has no other object, than the 
peace and prosperity of the church of Christ. 
We are pleading, not our own cause, but the 
cause of our Master. The denial of our christian 
character by fallible and imperfect men gives us no 
anxiety. Our relation to Jesus Christ is not to be 
dissolved by the breath of man. Our christian rights 
do not depend on human passions. We have precise- 
ly the same power over our brethren, which they have 
over us, and are equally authorized to sever them 
from the body of Christ. Still more ; if the possession 
of truth give superiour weight to denunciation, we are 
persuaded that our opposers will be the severest suf- 
ferers, should we think fit to hurl back the sentence 
of exclusion and condemnation. But we have no dis- 
position to usurp power over our brethren. We be- 
lieve, that the spirit which is so studiously excited 
against ourselves, has done incalculable injury to the 
cause of Christ ; and we pray God to deliver us from 
its power. 



25 

Why are the name, character, and rights of Chris- 
tians to be denied to Unitarians ? Do the y deny that 
Jesus is the Christ ? do they reject his word as the 
rule of their faith and practice ? do their lives dis- 
cover indifference to his authority and example ? No, 
these are not their offences. They are deficient in 
none of the qualifications of disciples, which were re- 
quired in the primitive age. Their offence is, that 
they read the Scriptures for themselves, and derive 
from them different opinions on certain points, from 
those which others have adopted. Mistake of judg- 
ment is their pretended crime, and this crime is laid 
to their charge by men, who are as liable to mistake 
as themselves, and who seem to them to have fallen 
into some of the grossest errours. A condemning sen* 
tence from such judges carries with it no terrour. Sor- 
row for its uncharitableness, and strong disapproba- 
tion of its arrogance, are the principal feelings which 
it inspires. 

It is truly astonishing, that Christians are not more 
impressed with the unbecoming spirit, the arrogant 
style, of those,who deny the christian character to pro- 
fessed and exemplary followers of Jesus Christ, be- 
cause they differ in opinion on some of the most sub- 
tle and difficult subjects of theology. A stranger, at 
hearing the language of these denouncers, would con- 
clude, without a doubt, that they were clothed with in- 
fallibility, and were appointed to sit in judgment on 
their brethren. But for myself, I know not a shadow 
of pretence fo** the language of superiority assumed 
by Dr. Worcester and his brethren. Are they exempt- 
ed from the common frailty of our nature ? Has God 
given them superiour intelligence? Were they educated 
under circumstances more favourable to improvement 
than those whom they condemn. Have they brought 
to the scriptures more serious, anxious, and unwearied 
attention? Or do their lives express a deeper reverence 
for God and for his Son ? No. Thev are fallible, imper- 

4 



26 

feet men, possessing no higher means, and no strong- 
er motives for studying the word of God, than their 
Unitarian brethren. And jet their language to them 
is virtually this. " We pronounce you to be in er- 
" rcur, and in most dangerous errour. We know that 
" we are right, and that you are wrong in regard to the 
" fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. You are unwor- 
" thy the christian name, and unfit to sit with us at the 
" table of Christ. We offer you the truth, and you re- 
ject it at the peril of your souls." Such is the lan- 
guage of humble Christians to men, who in capacity 
and apparent piety are not inferiour to themselves. 
This language has spread from the leaders through a 
considerable part of the community. Men in those 
walks of life which leave them without leisure or op- 
portunities for improvement, are heard to decide on 
the most intricate points, and to pass sentence on men, 
whose lives have been devoted to the study of the 
Scriptures. The female, forgetting the tenderness of 
her sex, and the limited advantages which her educa- 
tion affords for a critical study of the Scriptures, in- 
veighs with bitterness against the damnable errours 
of such men as Newton, Locke, Clarke and Price ! 
The young too forget the modesty which belongs to 
their age, and hurl condemnation on the head which 
has grown gray in the service of God and mankind. 
Need I ask, whether this spirit of denunciation for 
supposed errour becomes the humble and fallible dis- 
ciples of Jesus Christ? 

In vindication of this system of exclusion and de- 
nunciation it is often urged, that the " honour of re- 
ligion," the " purity of the church," and the i; cause of 
truth," forbid those who hold the true gospel to main- 
tain fellowship with those who support corrupt and 
injurious opinions. Without stopping to notice the 
modesty of those who claim an exclusive knowledge 
of the true gospel, I would answer, that the " honour 
of religion" can never suffer by admitting to christian 



27 

fellowship men of irreproachable lives, whilst it has 
suffered most severely from that narrow and unchari- 
table spirit, which has excluded such men for imagin- 
ed errours. I answer again, that the cause of truth 
can never suffer by admitting to christian fellowship 
men, who honestly profess to make the scriptures their 
rule of faith and practice, whilst it has suffered most 
severely by substituting for this standard conformity 
to human creeds and formularies. It is truly wonder- 
ful, if excommunication for supposed errour be the 
method of purifying the church, that the church has 
been so Ion** and so wofully corrupted. Whatever 
may have been the deficiencies of christians in other 
respects, they have certainly discovered no criminal 
reluctance in applying this instrument of purification. 
Could the thunders and lio;htnino;s of excommunication 
have corrected the atmosphere of the church, not one 
pestilential vapour would have loaded it for ages. The 
air of paradise would not have been more pure, more 
refreshing. But what does history tell us ? It tells us, 
that the spirit of exclusion and denunciation has con- 
tributed more than all other causes to the corruption 
of the church, to the diffusion of errour ; and has ren- 
dered the records of the christian community as black, 
as bloody, as revolting to humanity, as the records of 
empires founded on conquest and guilt. 

But it is said, did not the apostle denounce the 
erroneous, and pronounce a curse on the " abettors 
of another gospel." This is the strong hold of the 
friends of denunciation. But let us never forget, 
that the apostles were inspired men, capable of mark- 
ing out with unerring certainty those, who substitu- 
ted " another gospel" for the true. Show us their 
successors, and we will cheerfully obey them. 

It is also important to recollect the character ot 
those men, against whom the apostolick anathema 
was directed. They were men, who knew distinctly 
what the apostles taught, and yet opposed it ; and 



28 

who endeavoured to sow division, and to gain fol- 
lowers in the churches which the apostles had plant- 
ed. These men, resisting the known instructions of 
the authorized and inspired teachers of the gospel, 
and discovering a factious, selfish, mercenary spirit, 
were justly excluded as unworthy the christian name. 
But what in common with these men, have the Chris- 
tians whom Dr. Worcester and his friends denounce ? 
Do these oppose what they know to be the doctrine 
of Christ and his apostles ? Do they not revere Jesus 
and his inspired messengers ? Do they not dissent 
from Dr. Worcester, simply because they believe 
that Dr. Worcester dissents from their Lord ? — Let 
us not forget, that the contest at the present day is 
not between the apostles themselves, and men who 
oppose their known instructions ; but between unin- 
spired Christians, who equally receive the apostles 
as authorized teachers of the gospel, and who only 
differ in judgment as to the interpretation of their 
writings. How unjust then is it for any class of 
Christians to confound their opponents with the fac- 
tious and unprincipled sectarians of the primitive 
age. Mistake in judgment is the heaviest charge 
which one denomination has now a right to urge 
against another ; and do we find that the apostles 
ever denounced mistake as " awful and fatal hostili- 
ty" to the gospel, that they pronounced anathemas 
on men who wished to obey, but who misappre- 
hended their doctrines. The apostles well remem- 
bered, that none ever mistook more widely than them- 
selves. They remembered too the lenity of their Lord 
towards their errours, and this lenity they cherished 
and laboured to diffuse. 

But Dr. Worcester will ask, if Christians have not 
a right to bear " solemn testimony" against opinions 
which are " utterly subversive of the gospel, and 
most dangerous to men's eternal interests." To this 
I answer, that the opinions of men, who discover 



29 

equal intelligence and piety with ourselves, are enti- 
tled to respectful consideration. If after inquiry 
they seem erroneous and injurious, we are authorized 
and bound, according to our ability, to expose, by 
fair and serious argument, their nature and tendency. 
But I maintain, that we have no right as individuals, 
or in an associated capacity, to bear our " solemn 
testimony" against these opinions, by menacing with 
ruin the Christian who listens to them, or by brand- 
ing them with the most terrifying epithets, for the 
purpose of preventing candid inquiry into their 
truth. This is the fashionable mode of " bearing 
testimony," and it is a weapon which will always be 
most successful in the hands of the proud, the positive 
and overbearing, who are most impatient of contra- 
diction, and have least regard to the rights of their 
brethren. 

But whatever may be the right of Christians, as to 
bearing testimony against opinions which they deem 
injurious, I deny, that they have any right to pass a 
condemning sentence, on account of these opinions, 
on the characters of men whose general deportment is 
conformed to the gospel of Christ. Both scripture 
and reason unite in teaching, that the best and only 
standard of character is the life ; and he who over- 
looks the testimony of a christian life, and grounds a 
sentence of condemnation on opinions, about which 
he as well as his brother may err, violates most fla- 
grantly the duty of just and candid judgment, and 
opposes the peaceful and charitable spirit of the gos- 
pel. Jesus Christ says, " By their fruits shall ye 
know them." " Not every one, that saith unto me, 
Lord, Lord,shall enter into the kingdom of heaven,but 
he who doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." 
• Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command 
you.''' 9 " He that heareth and doeth these my sayings" 
i. e. the precepts of the sermon on the mount, " I will 
liken him to a man who built his house upon a rock." 



30 

it would be easy to multiply similar passages. The 
whole scriptures teach us, that he and he only is a 
Christian, whose life is governed by the precepts of 
the gospel, and that by this standard alone, the 
profession of this religion should be tried. We 
do not deny, that our brethren have a right to form 
a judgment as to our christian character. But we 
insist that we have a right to be judged by the fairest, 
the most approved, and the most settled rules, by 
which character can be tried ; and when these are 
overlooked, and the most uncertain standard is ap- 
plied, we are injured ; and an assault on character, 
which rests on this ground, deserves no better name 
than defamation and persecution. 

I know that this suggestion of persecution will be 
indignantly repelled by those who deal most largely 
in denunciation. But persecution is a wrong or in- 
jury inflicted for opinions, and surely assaults on 
character fall under this definition. Some persons 
seem to think, that persecution consists in pursuing 
errour with fire and sword; and that therefore it 
has ceased to exist, except in distempered imagina- 
tions, because no class of Christians among us is 
armed with these terrible weapons. But, no. The 
form is changed, but the spirit lives. Persecution 
has given up its halter and fagot, but it breathes 
venom from its lips, and secretly blasts what it can- 
not openly destroy. For example, a liberal minis- 
ter, however circumspect in his walk, however irre- 
Eroachable in all his relations, no sooner avows his 
onest convictions on some of the most difficult subjects, 
than his name begins to be a by-word. A thousand 
suspicions are infused into his hearers ; and it is in- 
sinuated, that he is a minister of satan, in " the guise 
of an angel of light." At a little distance from his 
home, calumny assumes a bolder tone. He is pro- 
nounced an infidel, and it is gravely asked, whether 
he believes in a God. At a greater distance, his 



31 

morals are assailed. He is a man of the world, 
" leading souls to hell," to gratify the most selfish 
passions. But notwithstanding all this, he must not 
say a word about persecution, for reports like these 
rack no limbs ; they do not even injure a hair of 
his head ; and how then is he persecuted ? — Now for 
myself, I am as willing that my adversary should take 
my purse or my life, as that he should rob me of my 
reputation, rob me of the affection of my friends, and 
of my means of doing good. " He who takes from 
me my good name," takes the best possession of 
which human power can deprive me. It is true, that 
a Christian's reputation is comparatively a light ob- 
ject ; and so is his property, so is his life ; all are 
light things to him, whose hope is full of immortality. 
But, of all worldly blessings, an honest reputa- 
tion is to many of us the most precious ; and he who 
robs us of it, is the most injurious of mankind, and 
among the worst of persecutors. Let not the friends 
of denunciation attempt to escape this charge, by 
pleading their sense of duty, and their sincere de- 
sire to promote the cause of truth. St. Dominic 
was equally sincere, when he built the inquisition ; 
and I doubt not that many torturers of Christians have 
fortified their reluctant minds, at the moment of ap- 
plying the rack and the burning iron, by the sincere 
conviction, that the cause of truth required the sacri- 
fice of its foes. I beg that these remarks may not be 
applied indiscriminately to the party called " ortho- 
dox," among whom are multitudes,whose humility and 
charity would revolt from making themselves the 
standards of christian piety, and from assailing the 
christian character of their brethren. 

Many other considerations may be added to those 
which have been already urged, against the system 
of excluding from christian fellowship men of upright 
lives, on account of their opinions. It necessarily 
generates perpetual discord in the church. Men 



32 

differ in opinions as much as in features. No two 
minds are perfectly accordant. The shades of belief 
are infinitely diversified. Amidst this immense variety 
of sentiment, every man is right in his own eyes. 
Every man discovers errours in the creed of his bro- 
ther. Every man is prone to magnify the impor- 
tance of his own peculiarities, and to discover danger 
in the peculiarities of others. This is human nature. 
Everyman is partial to his own opinions, because they 
are his own, and his self-will and pride are wounded 
by contradiction. Now what must we expect, when 
beings so erring, so divided in sentiment, and so apt 
to be unjust to the views of others, assert the right 
of excluding one another from the christian church 
on account of imagined errour ? As the Scriptures 
confine this right to no individual and to no body of 
Christians, it belongs alike to all ; and what must we 
expect, when Christians of all capacities and disposi- 
tions, the ignorant, prejudiced, and self-conceited, 
imagine it their duty to prescribe opinions to Chris- 
tendom, and to open or to shut the door of the church 
according to the decision which their neighbours may 
form on some of the most perplexing points of theolo- 
gy ? This question unhappily has received answer 
upon answer in ecclesiastical history. We there see 
christians denouncing and excommunicating one 
another for supposed errour, until every denomination 
has been pronounced accursed by some portion of the 
christian world ; so that were the curses of men to 
prevail, not one human being would enter heaven. 
To me it appears, that to plead for the right of exclud- 
ing men of blameless lives,on account of their opinions, 
is to sound the peal of perpetual and universal war. 
Arm men with this power, and we shall have "nothing 
but thunder." Some persons are sufficiently simple 
to imagine, that if this " horrid Unitarianism" were 
once hunted down, and put quietly into its grave, the 
church would be at peace. But, no : our present con* 



33 

tests have their origin, not in the " enormities" of Uni- 
tarianism, but very much in the principles of human 
nature, in the love of power, in impatience of contra- 
diction, in men's passion for imposing their own 
views upon others, in the same causes which render 
them anxious to make proselytes to all their opinions. 
Were Unitarianism quietly interred, another and 
another hideous form of errour would start up 
before the zealous guardians of the " purity of 
the church." The Arminian, from whom the 
pursuit has been diverted for a time by his more 
offending Unitarian brother, would soon be awa- 
kened from his dream of security, by the clamour 
of denunciation ; and should the Arminian fall 
a prey, the Calvinists would then find time to 
look into the controversies among themselves, and 
almost every class would discover, with the eagle 
eye of their brethren at New-York, that those who 
differ from them hold " another gospel," and ought 
to be " resisted and denounced." Thus the wars of 
Christians will be perpetual. Never will there be 
peace, until Christians agree to differ, and agree to 
look for the evidences of Christian character in 
the temper and the life. 

Another argument against this practice of denoun- 
cing the supposed errours of sincere professors of 
Christianity, is this. It exalts to supremacy in the 
church, men, who have the least claim to influence. 
Humble, meek, and affectionate Christians are least 
disposed to make creeds for their brethren, and to de- 
nounce those who differ from them. On the contrary, 
the impetuous, proud, andenthusiastick,men who can- 
not or will not weigh the arguments of opponents, are 
always most positive, and most unsparing in denun- 
ciation. These take the lead in a system of exclu- 
sion. They have no false modesty, no false charity, 
to shackle their zeal in framing fundamentals for 
their brethren, and in punishing the obstinate in 

5 



34 

errour. The consequence is, that creeds are formed 
which exclude from Christ's church some of his 
truest followers, which outrage reason as well as 
revelation, and which subsequent ages are obliged 
to mutilate and explain away, lest the whole religion 
be rejected by men of reflection. Such has been the 
history of the church. It is strange that we do not 
learn wisdom from the past. What man, who feels 
his own fallibility, who sees the errours into which 
the positive and " orthodox" of former times have 
been betrayed, and who considers his own utter 
inability to decide on the degree of truth, which every 
mind, of every capacity, must receive in order to sal- 
vation, will not tremble at the responsibility of pre- 
scribing to his brethren, in his own words, the views 
they must maintain on the most perplexing subjects 
of religion ? Humility will always leave this work to 
others. 

Another important consideration is, that this sys- 
tem of excluding men of apparent sincerity, for their 
opinions, entirely subverts free inquiry into the scrip- 
tures. When once a particular system is surrounded 
by this bulwark ; when once its defenders have 
brought the majority to believe, that the rejection of 
it is a mark of depravity ahd perdition, what but the 
name of liberty is left to Christians ? The obstacles to 
inquiry are as rea), and may be as powerful, as in the 
neighbourhood of the inquisition. The multitude 
dare not think, and the thinking dare not speak. The 
right of private judgment may thus, in a protestant 
country, be reduced to a nullity. It is true, that men 
are sent to the scriptures ; but they are told before 
they go, that they will be driven from the church on 
earth and in heaven, unless they find in the scriptures 
the doctrines which are embodied in the popular 
creed. They are told, indeed, to inquire for them- 
selves ; but they are also told, at what points inquiry 
must arrive-; and the sentence of exclusion hangs over 



35 

them, if they happen to stray with some of the best 
and wisest men into forbidden paths. Now this 
* protestant liberty" is, in one respect, more irrita- 
ting than Papal bondage. It mocks as well as en- 
slaves us. It talks to us courteously as friends and 
brethren, whilst it rivets our chains. It invites and 
even charges us to look with our own eyes, but with 
the same breath warns us against seeing any thing 
which orthodox eyes have not seen before us. Is 
this a state of things favourable to serious inquiry in- 
to the truths of the gospel ; yet, how long has the 
church been proanino; under this cruel voke ? 

Another objection to this system of excluding pro- 
fessed disciples of Christ, on account of their opin- 
ions, is, that it is inconsistent with the great principles 
of Congregationalism. In churches, where the pow- 
er is lodged in a few individuals, who are supposed 
to be the most learned men in the community, the 
work of marking out and excluding the erroneous. 
may seem less difficult. But among Congregation- 
alists, the tribunal before which the offender is to be 
brought is the whole church, consisting partly of 
men in humble circumstances, and of unimproved 
minds ; partly of men engaged in active and pressing 
business ; and partly of men of education, whose 
studies have been directed to law and medicine. 
Now, is this a tribunal, before which the most intri- 
cate points of theology are to be discussed, and seri- 
ous inquirers are to answer for opinions, which they 
have perhaps examined more laboriously and faith- 
fully than all their judges ? Would a church of hum- 
ble men, conscious of their limited opportunities, 
consent to try for these pretended crimes professing 
Christians, as intelligent, as honest, and as exemplary 
as themselves ? It is evident, that in the business >f 
excluding men for opinions, a church can be little more 
than the tool of the minister, or a few influential 
members ; and our churches are, in general, too in- 



36 

dependent and too upright to take this part in so so- 
lemn a transaction. To correct their deficiencies, and 
to quicken their zeal on this point, we are now threat- 
ened with new tribunals, or consociations, whose office 
it will be to try ministers for their errours, to inspect 
the churches, and to advise and assist them in the ex- 
tirpation of " heresy." Whilst the laity are slumber- 
ing, the ancient and free constitution of our churches 
is silently undermined, and is crumbling away. Since 
argument is insufficient to produce uniformity of 
opinion, recourse must be had to more powerful in- 
struments of conviction ; I mean, to ecclesiastical 
courts. And are this people indeed prepared to 
submit to this most degrading form of vassalage ; a 
vassalage, which reaches and palsies the mind, and 
imposes on it the dreams and fictions of men, for the 
everlasting truth of God ! 

o 

These remarks lead me to the last consideration, 
which I shall urge, against the proposed system of 
exclusion and separation. This system will shake to 
the foundation our religious institutions, and destroy 
many habits and connexions which have had the 
happiest influence on the religious character of this 
people. In the first place, if christian communion 
and all acknowledgments of christian character are 
to be denied on the ground of difference of opinion, 
the annual U Convention of Congregational ministers, 
of Massachusetts," that ancient bond of union, must 
be dissolved ; and in its dissolution we shall lose the 
edifying, honourable, and rare example of ministers 
regularly assembling, not to exercise power and to 
fetter the conscience, but to reciprocate kind affec- 
tion, and to unite in sending relief to the families of 
their deceased brethren. This event may gladden 
the heart of the sectarian ; it will carry no joy to the 
widow and orphan. — In the next place, the " Associ- 
ations of ministers," in our different counties must 
in many cases be broken up, to make room for new 



37 



associations, founded on similarity of opinion. Thus, 
that intercourse, which now subsists between minis- 
ters of different persuasions, and which tends to en- 
large the mind, and to give a liberality to the feelings, 
will be diminished, if not destroyed ; and ministers, 
becoming more contracted and exclusive, will com- 
municate more of this unhappy spirit to their socie- 
ties. — In the next place, neighbouring churches, 
which, from their very foundation, have cultivated 
christian communion, and counselled and comforted 
each other, will be mutually estranged, and catching 
the temper of their religious guides, will exchange 
fellowship for denunciation; and instead of de- 
lighting in each other's prosperity, will seek each 
other's destruction. — Again, in the same church, 
where Christians of different views have long ac- 
knowledged each other as disciples of one Master, 
and have partaken the same feast of charity, angry 
divisions will break forth, parties will be marshalled 
under different leaders, the sentence of excommunica- 
tion will be hurled by the majority on their guiltless 
brethren, (if the majority should be "orthodox,") and 
thus anger, heart-burnings, and bitter recriminations 
will spread through many of our towns and churches. 
— Again ; many of our religious societies will be rent 
asunder, their ministers dismissed, and religious insti- 
tutions cease. It is well known, that many of our 
country parishes are able to support but a single 
minister. At the same time, they are divided in sen- 
timent ; and nothing but a spirit of charity and for- 
bearance has produced that union, by which publick 
worship has been maintained. Once let the proposed 
war be proclaimed, let the standard of party be rais- 
ed, and a minister must look for support to that party 
only to which he is attached. An " orthodox" min- 
ister should blush to ask it from men, whom he de- 
nounces for honest opinions, and to whom he denies 
all the ordinances of the gospel. It surely cannot be 



38 

expected that liberal Christians will contribute, hj 
their property, to uphold a system of exclusion and 
intolerance directed against themselves. What then 
will be the fate of many of our societies ? Their 
ministers, even now, can with difficulty maintain the 
conflict with other denominations : must they not 
sink, when deserted by their most efficient friends ? 
Many societies will be left, as sheep without a shep- 
herd, a prey to those whom we call Sectarians, but 
who will no longer have an exclusive right to the 
name, if the system of division, which has been pro- 
posed, be adopted. Many ministers will be compel- 
led to leave the field of their labours and their pro- 
spects of usefulness ; and I fear the ministry will lose 
its hold on the affection and veneration of men, when 
it shall have engendered so much division and con- 
tention. — But this is not all. The system of denying 
the christian name to those who diner from us in in- 
terpreting the scriptures, will carry discord not only 
into churches, but families. In how many instances 
are heads of families divided in opinion on the pre- 
sent subjects of controversy. Hitherto they have 
loved each other as partakers of the same glorious 
hopes, and have repaired in their domestick joys and 
sorrows to the same God (as they imagined,) 
through the same Mediator. But now they are 
taught, that they have different Gods and different gos- 
pels, and are taught that the friends of truth are not 
to hold communion with its rejectors. Let this doc- 
trine be received, and one of the tenderest ties bjr 
which many wedded hearts are knit together will be 
dissolved. The family altar must fall. Religion 
will be known in many a domestick retreat, not as a 
bond of union, but a subject of debate, a source of 
discord or depression. 

Now { ask, for what boon are all these sacrifices to 
be made? The great end is, that certain opinions, 
which have been embraced by many serious and in- 



39 

quiring Christians as the truth of God, may be driven 
from the church, and be dreaded by the people as 
among the worst of crimes. Uniformity of opinion, 
that airy good, which emperors, popes, councils, sy- 
nods, bishops, and ministers have been seeking for 
ages, by edicts, creeds, threatenings, excommunica- 
tions, inquisitions and flames, this is the great 
object of the system of exclusion, separation, and 
denunciation which is now to be introduced. To 
this we are to sacrifice our established habits and 
bonds of union, and this is to be pursued by means, 
which, as many reflecting men believe, threaten our 
dearest rights and liberties. 

It is sincerely hoped, that reflecting laymen will no 
longer shut their eyes on this subject. It is a melan- 
choly fact, that our long established congregational 
form of church government is menaced, and tribunals 
unknown to our churches, and unknown, as we be- 
lieve, to the scriptures, are to be introduced ; and in- 
troduced for the very purpose, that the supposed er- 
rours and mistakes of ministers and private Christians 
may be tried and punished as heresies, i. e. as crimes. 
In these tribunals, as in all ecclesiastical bodies, the 
clergy, who make theology their profession, will of 
necessity have a preponderating influence, so that 
the question now before the pubhck is in fact only a 
new form of the old controversy, which has agitated 
all ages, viz. whether the clergy shall think for the laity, 
or prescribe to them their religion ? Were this question 
fairly proposed to the pubhck, there would be but 
one answer ; but it is wrapped up in a dark phraseo- 
logy about the purity and order of the church, a 
phraseology, which, I believe, imposes on multitudes 
of ministers as well as laymen, and induces acquies- 
cence in measures, the real tendency of which they 
would abhor. It is, I hope, from no feeling of party, 
but from a sincere regard to the religion of Christ, that 
I would rouse the slumbering minds of this community 



40 

to the dangers which hang over their religious insti- 
tutions. No power is so rapidly accumulated, or so 
dreadfully abused as ecclesiastical power. It assails 
men with menaces of eternal wo, unless they submit, 
and gradually awes the most stubborn and strongest 
minds into subjection. I mean not to ascribe the in- 
tention of introducing ecclesiastical tyranny to any 
class of Christians among us ; but, I believe that ma- 
ny, in the fervour of a zeal which may be essentially 
virtuous, are about to touch with unhallowed hands 
the ark of God, to support Christianity by measures 
which its mild and charitable spirit abhors. I believe, 
that many, overlooking the principles of human na- 
ture, and the history of the church, are about to set 
in motion a spring of which they know not the force, 
and cannot calculate the effects. I believe, that the 
seed of spiritual tyranny is sown, and although to a 
careless spectator it may seem the " smallest of all 
seeds," it has yet, within itself, a fatal principle of 
increase, and may yet darken this region of our coun- 
try with its deadly branches. 

The time is come, when the friends of christian 
liberty and christian charity are called to awake, and 
to remember their duties to themselves, to posterity, 
and to the church of Christ. The time is come, when 
the rights of conscience and the freedom of our 
churches must be defended with zeal. The time is 
come, when menace and denunciation must be 
met with a spirit, which will show, that we dread 
not the frowns, and lean not on the favour of 
man. The time is come, when every expression of 
superiority on the part of our brethren should be re- 
pelled as criminal usurpation. But in doing this, let 
the friends of liberal and genuine Christianity remem- 
ber the spirit of their religion. Let no passion or 
bitterness dishonour their sacred cause. In contend- 
ing for the gospel, let them not lose it virtues or 
forfeit its promises. — We are indeed called to pas? 



4i 

through one of the severest trials of human virtue, 
the trial of controversy. We should carry with us a 
sense of its danger. Religion, when made a subject 
of debate, seems often to lose its empire over the 
heart and life. The mild and affectionate spirit of 
Christianity gives place to angry recriminations and 
cruel surmises. Fair dealing, uprightness, and truth 
are exchanged for the quibbling and arts of sophistry. 
The devotional feelings, too, decline in warmth and 
tenderness. Let us then watch and pray. Let us 
take heed that the weapons of our warfare be not 
carnal. Whilst we repel usurpation, let us be just 
to the general rectitude of many by whom our 
christian rights are invaded. Whilst we repel the 
uncharitable censures of men, let us not forget that 
deep humility and sense of unworthiness, with which 
we should ever appear before our Maker. In our 
zeal to maintain the great truth, that our Father m 
Heaven is alone the Supreme God, let us not neglect 
that intercourse with him, without which the purest 
conceptions will avail little to enthrone him in our 
hearts. In our zeal to hold fast the " word of Christ" 
in opposition to human creeds and formularies, let us 
not forget, that our Lord demands another and a still 
more unsuspicious confession of him, even the exhibi- 
tion of his spirit and religion in our lives. 

The controversy in which we are engaged is in- 
deed painful ; but it was not chosen, but forced upon 
us, and we ought to regard it as a part of the disci- 
pline to which a wise Providence has seen fit to sub- 
ject us. Like all our other trials, it is designed to 
promote our moral perfection. I trust, too, that it is 
designed to promote the cause of truth. Whilst I 
would speak diffidently of the future, I still hope, that 
a brighter day is rising on the christian church, than 
it has yet enjoyed. The gospel is to shine forth in 
its native glory. The violent excitement, by which 
some of the corruptions of this divine svstem are now 

a 



42 

supported, cannot be permanent ; and the uncharita- 
bleness with which they are enforced, will re-act, like 
the persecutions of the church of Rome, in favour 
of truth. Already we have the comfort of seeing 
many disposed to inquire, and to inquire without 
that terrour, which has bound as with a spell so 
many minds. We doubt not, that this inquiry will 
result in a deep conviction that Christianity is yet dis- 
figured by errours which have been transmitted from 
ages of darkness. Of this, at least, we are sure, that 
inquiry, by discovering to men the difficulties and 
obscurities which attend the present topicks of con- 
troversy, will terminate in what is infinitely more 
desirable than doctrinal concord, in the diffusion of a 
mild, candid, and charitable temper. I pray Qod, 
that this most happy consummation may be in no 
degree obstructed by any unchristian feelings, which, 
notwithstanding my sincere efforts, have escaped me 
in the present controversy. 



NOTE. 



It would be easy to point out many exceptionable pas- 
sages in Dr. Worcester's letter ; but 1 wish to '* abstain even 
from the appearance" of that minute and carping criticism, so 
comjnon in controversy, which, overlooking the general im- 
port of a book, and the great points of controversy, seizes 
on unguarded expressions, exposes petty inaccuracies, ex- 
torts inferences of which the au.hor never dreamed, and 
aims to humble an opponent instead of meeting the great 
question in dispute. There are, however, a few particulars 
in Dr. Worcester's letter, which ought not Jo be passed over 
in that silence, which in the present and in my former re- 
marks 1 have observed towards many objectionable expres- 
sions and passages. 

A common reader would imagine from Dr. Worcester's 
language, that from the age of Christ to the present time, 
there has been a succession of Christians called " orthodox," 
who have agreed in opinion on \he disputed doctrines of the 
gospel. But this is a fiction. The opinions of some of the 
" most orthodox" in New-England, on the Trinity, would 
have exposed them, I fear, to excommunicatiou by the " or- 
thodox" in some of the early ages of Christianity. If J were 
to define the word " orthodox," I should say that it means 
the predominant party in the church, and especially those 
who are so destitute of humility as to arrogate to themselves 
an exclusive understanding of the gospel. 

Dr. Worcester in his first letter had this remarkable, and I 
think, very unhappy passage. " The God whom you wor- 
ship, is different from ours." To remove this impression, I 
declared very fully, the God whom I worship. Dr. Worces- 
ter has taken no notice of this statement, but observes, " We 
worship the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Do you worship 
this same God." To this question I will endeavour to give 
a satisfactory answer. If by " the Father, Son and Holy 
Ghost" Dr. Worcester means the God of Abraham, of 
Isaac, of Jacob, who glorified his son Jesus, whom Peter 
preached Acts iii ; if he means the God and Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ to whom Paul bent the knee ; it he means 



44 

that God whom Jesus worshipped in the solemn hour of 
death, saying, l * Father into toy hands, I commit my spirit ;" 
if he means that God of whom Jesus spoke in these memora- 
ble words, " the hour cometh and now is, when the true 
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth ; 
if he means that God of whom Paul said ; " To us (i. e. to 
Christians) there is one God, even the Father ; it by " the 
Father, Son and Holy Ghost," Dr. Worcester means this 
God, who is proposed to us in these passages, the God of 
Jems Christ, of Abraham, of Paul and of Christians, then I 
worship " the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." I sincerely 
hope that this is D.. Worcester's meaning, for it would give 
me great pain to believe that he and his friends worship any 
other than the " God of Jesus Christ" and the God of Chris- 
tians. — W T hy does he use phraseology, which renders this 
point in the least degree doubtful? Why does he not speak 
of the true God in the simple and affecting language of the 
scriptures ? Jesus in his sermon on the Blount, has given us 
very particular instructions in relation to the object of our 
worship, and has closed this discourse with a solemn declara- 
tion, that if we obey the precepts which it contains, we 
shall be " like the man who built his house on a rock."— 
Now in this longest and most particular discourse of Jesus, 
whom does he tell us to worship. Does he say, when ye 
pray, pray to " the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." No — 
His language, so simple, so touching, so encouraging, should 
be engraven on all our hearts. " Thou, when thou prayesty 
" enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door 
" pray to thy Father who is in secret." Again. " When 
" ye pray, say, Our Father, who art in Heaven ;" And 
again- " If ye being evil, know how to give good gifts to 
" your children, how much more shall your Father who is 
" in heaven give good things to them that ask him." To 
these most interesting precepts of Jesus, I and my brethren 
yield entire and cheerful obedience. W r ith these precepts 
the whole scriptures concur. We find not one passage in 
the scriptures, commanding us to worship " the Father, Son 
and Holy Ghost ;" not one precedent, which authorizes such 
worship, and while we feel ourselves bound to exercise 
christian candour towards those who adopt this form of wor- 
ship, we are not without solemn apprehension, that, in this 
respect, they are guilty of irreverence towards the word of 
God, and of preferring to it the commandments and inven- 
tions of men. Let them weigh seriously these remarks. 



45 

Ih my former remarks, I repelled the assertion of Dr, 
Worcester, that our Saviour is infinitely inferiour to 
his, by declaring that " We believe that God saves us 
by his son Jesus Christ in whom he dwells, and through 
whom he bestows pardon and eternal life." Dr. Worcester 
says, that this is to declare that Jesiis Christ is not our Sa- 
viour. I lament that his letter is dishonoured by such a re- 
mark. Does he not know that the apostles again and again 
speak of God as our Saviour, and as saving us by Jestis 
Christ ? Do they therefore deny Jesus to be our Saviour ? 
In 2 Tim. i. 1, we find these words of Paul, " Paul an apos- 
" tie of Jesus Christ, according to the commandment of 
" God our Saviour, and of Jesus Christ our hope." Here 
God, and not Jesus Christ, is called the Saviour. Did 
Paul intend to deny this name of Jesus Christ ? Is not this 
name applied to Jesus because he is the minister of God 
in our salvation, and do we then refuse it to him, when we 
declare that it primarily belongs to God, his Father. In 
I Tim. ii. 3, we meet these words, " This is acceptable in 
the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be 
saved ; for there is one God, and one Mediator between 
God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Here God is emi- 
nently our Saviour, and Jesus saves us as he is his minis- 
ter. In Titus 3, 4, &c. we see this title applied both to 
God and Jesus Christ in a manner which shows that it be- 
longs to God in the first and highest sense. "After that 
the kindness of God our Saviour appeared, he saved us 
by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us 
abundantly through Jesus Christ otir Saviour.* The 
apostle, it seems, thought that he might call Jesus Christ 
our Saviour, although he considered God as originally and 
eminently our Saviour, and as saving us through or by Je- 
sus Christ. I will add one more passage from Jude. "Now 
unto him who is able to keep you from falling, to the only 
God, our Saviour, be glory through Jesus Christ our 
Lord." See Griesbach. Had Dr. Worcester weighed 
these passages, he would not have made the rash and very- 
improper charge, which I am considering. — Is not the reader 
inclined to think, that the apostles wrote very much like 
Unitarians ? 

It was my intention in this note to show the weakness of 
the scripture proof of the Trinity which Dr. Worcester has 

"* I omit some clauses that the connexion may be better seen. 



46 

adduced in his letter. But this pamphlet is already extend- 
ed beyond my wishes ; and besides, I wish to separate the 
discussion of the Trinity from the present controversy. I 
would therefore only observe in relation to the texts winch 
have been collected by D> . Worcester, that nothing is easi- 
er than to produce a string of texts in support of almost 
every doctrine. Calvinism and Arminianism, Universal 
Salvation and the doctrine of eternal punishment, transub- 
stantiation and other tenets of popery, may each and all be 
supported by detached passages as conclusive as those 
which Dr. Worcester has produced for the Trinity. This 
mode of defence is peculiarly suited to the Trinitarian cause, 
which rests on a comparatively small number of disconnect- 
ed texU. Unilarianism, besides being directly affirmed in 
particular passages, runs through the whole scriptures, ap- 
pears on the whole current of sentiment and language in the 
old and the new Testament, its proofs are not therefore to be 
despatched in so narrow a compass. It is my earnest desire 
that the publick attention may be turned from individuals to 
this point. Why cannot this controversy be conducted with 
calmness, without impeachment of character or motives, and 
without appeals to popular feeling ? We have all an equal 
inlerest in discovering truth ; and no zeal, and no sophistry, 
can long support the cause of errour. Let us then encour- 
age fair and dispassiouate discussion, and be careful to 
throw no obstruction in the way of free and honest inquiry. 
I have now a few words to offer on the " separation 1 * 
made by some of the Unitarians in England, to which Dr. 
Worcester seems disposed to attach great importance. I 
inferred (perhaps inconsiderately) from the statement of 
Dr. Worcester in his first letter, that these Unitarians had 
so far introduced their peculiarities into their publick wor- 
ship, that other Christians were virtually excluded. Of 
this separation I expressed no approbation, but simply ob- 
served that it by no means amounted to the separation 
which is recommended in this country, which would deny 
the christian character to a large body of professing Chris- 
tians. Dr. Worcester, however, by a kind of reasoning, 
which is too common with him, infers that this kind of se- 
paration would be quite agreeable to me, and spends a page 
in observations founded chiefly on my silence. Since 
writing my remarks, I have been happy to learn that the 
impressions which I received from Dr. Worcester respect- 
ing these English Unitarians were incorrect. I am inform- 



ed, that their worship is singularly free from peculiarities, 
and that alt Christians may join in it without hesitation or 
pain. I learn, that Mr. Lindsey introduced into his chapel 
the Liturgy of the church of England, omitting oni\ the 
few parts in which the doctrine of the Trinity is recognized, 
and directing all the prayers to the Father through the Son. 
This is the worship which is most common among all de- 
nominations in this country, and by which no Christian can 
be offended. Most sincerely do I wish, that our publick 
services may be marked by this liberal character. Very 
different classes of Christians, I am persuaded, may unite 
in the same worship, and be built up at once in godliness 
and charity. I have listened with great satisfaction to the 
prayers of Trinitarians, and I have heard from very ardent 
Trinitarians expressions of great interest in prayers which 
have been offered by Unitarians. True piety, when un- 
fettered by system, approaches the Father through the 
Son, and supplicates earnestly for the aids of the Holy 
Spirit. 

Dr. Worcester speaks in his letter of the " awful temeri- 
" ty of adjudging to eternal life, men, however fair their 
" character in the eyes of the world, however renowned for 
" what the world calls wisdom, however distinguished 
" among the friends of science or of sacred literature, who 
" nevertheless deny the blood of atonement, degrade 
" the Lord, who bought them, to the condition of a mere crea- 
;t ture, go about to establish their own righteousness," &c. 
This passage is designed to teach us that we cannot with^ 
out awful temerity admire the christian virtues and labours 
of such men as Newton, Locke, Lardner and Price, or che- 
rish the delightful hope that they have gone to receive the 
rewards of faithful servants of Jesus Christ. I confess that 
I am shocked when I hear the humble Lardner, (at whom 
these remarks seem principally aimed) charged with degrad- 
ing that Saviour, to whose cause his life was devoted, with 
criminal insensibility to his honour and with a proud de- 
pendence on " his own righteousness." There must 
be something wrong, dreadfully wrong, in a religious system, 
which calls us to breathe mildew on the fairest and most 
interesting characters which have adorned the church, and 
to repress the gratitude and admiration which spontaneous- 
ly spring up in a pure mind towards the most illustrious 
benefactors of mankind. If it be " awful temerity" to 
think Lardser a good man, where is the human being whose 



48 

piety we ought not to distrust. What can preserve ui 
from distrusting the reality of all human virtue ? To Ihis 
mournful result, the present system of denunciation directly 
tends. It tends to diffuse the most fatal kind of skepti- 
cism, a skepticism in regard to the reality of all moral and 
religious excellence. If the marks of christian virtue which 
have been exhibited by Unitarians be false and delusive, 
then none are worthy of con6dence, and the slanders which 
the Atheist has cast on human piety cannot be refuted. — 
If (i orthodoxy" encourage and demand this fatal censori- 
ousness, it cannot be of God* it cannot ultimately prevail. 



THIRD LETTER 



REV. WILLIAM E. CHANNING, 



ON THE SUBJECT 01 



UNITARIANISM. 



BY SAMUEL WORCESTER, D.D. 

PJlSTOK OF THE TABERNACLE CHURCH, SALEM. 



BOSTON: 

PH1NTK1) HI SAMUEL T. ARMSTRONG, NO. 50, CORSHUt. 

1315. 



LETTER. 



REV. AND DEAR SIR, 

I find that you have seen fit to make to the publick 
another set of remarks about me, and about other persons 
and things in connexion with me. I did hope, if you should 
condescend to write again, it would not be in the style of a 
murmurer and complainer, or of a popular suiter and declaim- 
ed If the "self-respect" and "virtuous indignation," of which 
you have so emphatically spoken, required you to turn your 
back upon your opponent, and to refuse to him the offices, not 
only of brotherly kindness, but of common civility; yet it 
might have been well, had they not withheld you also from at- 
tending to the points which essentially belong to the debate, 
which have been distinctly stated and urged, and which cer- 
tainly merit very serious and candid consideration and dis- 
cussion. Those, however, are virtues it should seem of no 
ordinary loftiness and inflexibility, and of no ordinary claims 
and prerogatives. 

On the question of writing again, several considerations 
have presented themselves to my mind. My Second Letter 
seems to need no vindication or support; as your Remarks 
have not I suppose, to any one, even the appearance of an an- 
swer. My labours and duties are many, and my health is 
frail. A considerable portion of the publick are probably 
desirous that the controversy should cease: as a large class 
have not patience to attend long to any subject which re- 
quires serious thought; not a few have an imposing prejudice 
against all religious debate, and a morbid dread of this dis- 
cussion in particular; as if religious truth, and such especial- 
ly as relates directly to the redem _>tion of mankind, and the 
person and kingdom of the Redeemer, ought not to be de- 
veloped or defended: and not a little influence is exerted to 
prevent people from reading — more than one side. — Still 



however there are many who do read and will read both sides. 
The points in discussion are among the most important, that 
could be offered to the attention of the christian community. 
Though some ill effects may ensue, as, in a world like this, is al- 
ways to be expected, when any thing is attempted for the 
cause of truth; yet the persuasion, I believe, is continually ex- 
tending and gaining strength, that the good effects will great- 
ly preponderate. And though I have been accused of being a 
volunteer in this service, as I would certainly wish to be, in 
a cause so deeply interesting to the honour and kingdom of 
the Lord Jesus; yet as I have girded on the harness, whether 
prudently or imprudently, the time does not seem to have ar- 
rived for me to put it off. — What I have now to offer will be 
disposed under several distinct heads. 

I. In the outset of your Remarks, you re-urge the charge 
of »*bad spirit and intention." To this I am compelled briefly 
to reply. — My conscience bears me witness, that my design has 
been not to excite popular or party passions and animosi- 
ties, already in a flame when I first took my pen, but to as- 
sauge them; not to promote a violent disruption, or an ir- 
regular denunciation in the christian community, but to give 
such a direction to the controversy, as would lead to sober 
and conscientious inquiry, and to a right understanding of 
truth and of duty. It has long been well known, that I have 
not been the advocate of rash measures, of hasty separations, 
or of a rigorously restricted system of fellowship. You have 
yourself been pleased to say, that you had "regarded me as 
a man of candour, moderation, and liberal feelings." Though 
you have seen fit to alter your opinion, and to represent me 
as a man destitute of candour, and possessed of a bitter, ma- 
lignant, and persecuting spirit; yet I suppose it will be obvi- 
ous to others, if not to yourself, that this latter opinion has 
been formed under circumstances not the most favourable to 
an impartial and correct judgment; and lam sustained in the 
confidence, that candid men will pronounce, that for your sud- 
den change of opinion, and your consequent criminations, so 
hastily expressed, and so pertinaciously reiterated, you had 
no sufficient reason. 



To a candour, indeed, which confounds the distinction be- 
tween truth and crrour, — to a moderation which regards both 
the one and the other, as of little consequence, — to a liberali- 
ty Which places them on equal terms, in regard to christian 
character and christian communion, I make no pretensions. 
I do hold, that belief in the truth is essential to Christianity; 
and that "the church of the living God, which is the pillar 
and ground of the truth," and the ministers of Jesus Christ, 
who are "set for the defence of the gospel," have not only a 
right to inquire, but are under obligations of infinite responsi- 
bility to inquire, concerning the faith as well as the practice 
of individuals and communities, claiming christian fellowship: 
— to inquire, however, with candour, and meekness, and char- 
ity, making a difference between ignorance and disbelief, and 
between circumstantial errours, and fundamental. This is 
my heinous offence, — my unpardonable crim e. It is on ac- 
count of this persuasion, that you have "considered my letter 
unworthy of me as a christian and a christian minister," and 
"thought that I hare discovered a strange insensibility towards 
my brethren," and written with a bad spirit and intention. 
I say, this is the reason of your abundant criminations of me: 
for you have pointed to no other, but to this you have distinct- 
ly and repeatedly pointed. 

What you think of me, or what I think of yeu, is in itself 
of little importance to the pubJick, and' can have nothing to 
do with the merits of the cause in debate. It may be, howev- 
er, of considerable consequence, to remark the grounds on 
which you are so ready to pronounce a man to be destitute of 
candour, and charity, and all good motives and feelings, and 
to impute to him a bitter, malignant, and persecuting spirit; 
as it may serve to explain the nature of that charity on 
which you lay so great a stress, and to which you make such 
lofty pretensions. Let it here then be distinctly noted, that, 
according to your representations, if a man demur as to chris- 
tian fellowship, on account of any errour in sentiment, he is 
destitute of charity, and a persecutor,' if he regard no erour 
as any bar to fellowship, lie is a chari table man, and a liberal 
christian. This topick I shall have occasion to consider fur- 
ther in another place. 



II. You give it to be understood, that the reason of your 
appearing again before the publick, was my call upon you to 
retract a misstatement. You had stated that "the obvious 
import of the concluding part of" my first "Letter might be 
thus expressed: 'Every man who cannot admit as a doctrine 
of scripture, the great doctrine of three persons in one God, 
which I and other orthodox christians embrace, believes an 
opposite gospel, rejects the true gospel, despises the authori- 
ty of Jesus Christ, is of course a man wholly wanting in true 
piety and without christian virtue; and may in perfect consist- 
ency with christian love be rejected as unworthy the name of 
a christian.' " I did pronounce this "a flagrant misstate- 
ment," and solemnly call upon you to retract it. In reply 
you say. "I i tend to shew, that in giving this interpreta- 
tion, I followed the natural meaning of Dr. Worcester's words, 
that I put no violence on his language, and that no other sense 
Would have offered itself to an unprejudiced mind." You 
then proceed to "state the passages" of my letter "which led 
to the representation which you had formed." 

I did propose to re uote all those passages in their order, 
for the sake of shewing in a strong light the strange state of 
that mind which could assert, and in the face of the clear ex- 
position of my sentiments and views, given in my Second 
Letter, reassert, that "the natural meaning" of them is given 
in your contested statement. But I feel a strong repugnance 
to filling the pages of my present letter with quotations from 
my former ones; and a repugnance, not less strong, to be- 
stowing so much attention upon a point so personal. One 
principal passage, therefore, may suffice. "Is it," I ask in 
my first Letter, p. 32, "Is it then a violation of the great law 
of love for the friends of truth to decline communion with its 
rejecters? — We have nothing to do here with slight diversi- 
ties of opinion; with differences about modes or forms, or in- 
considerable points of faith or practice. Our concern is with 
differences of a radical and fundamental nature; such as exist 
between orthodox christians and Unitarians of all degrees, 
even down to the creed of Mr. Belsham: for to this point you 
have yourself fairly reduced the present questi;.. —Yes, Sir, 
the simple point here at issue is. Whether it be a violation of 



the law of love for believers in the true gospel of Jesus Christ 
to separate from believers in another and an opposite gospel? 
If yours is the true gospel, then ours is another; if ours is the 
true gospel, then yours is another. In either case, the great 
question respecting fellowship remains the same." This is 
the passage on which you seem mainly to rely; and it is un- 
doubtedly the strongest passage of the whole, and includes in 
it the principal ideas, of any aspect to your purpose, contain- 
ed in the rest. — But, Sir, do I here say, that "Every man who 
cannot admit as a doctrine of scripture, the great doctrine of 
three persons in one God, which I and other orthodox chris- 
tians embrace, believes an opposite gospel, rejects the true 
gospel, despises the authority of Jesus Christ, and is, of course, 
a man wholly wanting in true piety and without christian vir- 
tue!" Is this "the natural meaning of the words?" and does 
no other sense offer itself to an unprejudiced mind!" I put the 
question, Sir, to your conscience. 

Please to observe. In the first place, in this passage, I state 
the question at issue: "Is it a violation of the great law of love 
for the friends of truth to decline communion with its reject- 
ers?" — I then, that the question may be disembarrassed, state 
by way of explication, that "We have nothing to do here 
with slight diversities of opinion; with differences about modes 
or forms, or inconsiderable points of faith or practice:" suck 
as those might be thought to be, which exist between ortho- 
dox christians and some whom you would call the higher 
Unitarians. "Our concern," I further observe, "is with dif- 
ferences of a radical and fundamental nature; such as exist 
between orthodox christians and Unitarians of all degrees, 
even down to the creed of Mr. Belsham: for to this point you have 
yourself fairly reduced the present question" You certainly 
had reduced it to this point. You had contended, that Uni- 
tarians, not of the higher degrees only, but even of the 
lowest degrees, ought to be held in christian fellowship. I 
therefore, fixed upon Mr. Belsham's creed, as something 
tangible and definite, by means of which the merits of the 
pending question might be tried; and, reduced to this point, 
the question, which otherwise might have been attended with 
embarrassment and perplexity, became to my mind a very 



plain one. Accordingly I had a little before said, "Tha 
question then is a short one. Is not Mr. Belsham's gospel, 
asset forth in his creed, another gospel than that which Paul 
preached? If you are not willing to admit this; yet surely 
you cannot hesitate a moment to admit, that it is another than 
that which is held by orthodox christians, — which is 
preached by orthodox ministers: — essentially different 
in every particular from the foundation to the topsfcone. 
One or the other of these schemes tiien must be wiiat 
St. Paul denominates another gospel, and against which and 
its abettors he solemnly pronounces his apostolick anathema*" 
To this statement I distinctly refer in the passage under consid- 
eration. Having thus simplified the question respecting fellow- 
ship, by restricting it to Mr. Belsham's scheme, I then proceed 
to restate it in these words: " Yes, Sir, the simple point here 
at issue is, whether it be a violation of the law of love for 
believers in the true gospel of Jesus Christ to separate from 
believers in another and an opposite gospek If yours is the 
true gospel, then ours is another,* if ours is the true gospel, 
then yours is another. In either case the great question res- 
pecting fellowship remains the same." — Was it passible for 
the question to have been more clearly or definitely stated? 
Was it possible for it to have been more plainly expressed, 
that the issue to be tried was precisely between the believers 
vi Mr. Belsham's gospel, and the believers in that called or- 
thodox? Mr. Belsham's is here called "your gospel, for the 
very obvious reason, that it is the one which, in the statement 
of the question, is opposed on your part to the one on purpart*" 
Now, Sir, I ask again, do I in this passage say, that "Ev- 
ery man who cannot admit as a doctrine of scripture, the 
great doctrine of three persons in one, which I and other or- 
thodox christians embrace, believes in an opposite gospel, 
rejects the true gospel, despises the authority of Jesus Christ, 
and is, of course, a man wholly wanting in true piety and 
without christian virtue." No, Sir: it is not here, or any 
where else by me, said, that "every man" who does not em- 
brace the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity either "believes 
in," or "abets, an opposite gospel," or "rejects t?»e true 
gospel, or despises the authority of Jesus Christ," or "is 



wholly wanting in christian piety ," or is "without christian 
virtue." Neither of these things is either affirmed or impli- 
ed in any passage of mine; hut the terms used hy me, and 
the entire connexion, are particularly and pointedly guarded 
against such a construction. Had not ijou said it, I should 
certainly have thought that the person who could say, that 
the interpretation which you have given is "the natural mean- 
ing of my words," "that in giving such an interpretation no 
violence is put upon my language," and "that no other sense 
offers itself to an unprejudiced mind," really had not "ability 
to decide on the obvious import of a letter written in our na- 
tive tongue," and ought to be sent to school, to learn the very 
rudiments of grammar and logick. This remark I apply to alt 
the passages which you have cited. Taken severally or col- 
lectively, in a detached state or in their respective conexions,. 
they neither naturally express, nor by all the torture to 
which you have put, or can put them, can they, be made to 
yield the sense which you have so resolutely attempted to 
fasten upon them. 

Had it, however, been otherwise; had my expressions been 
such as easily to admit, or even naturally to convey the sense 
of your statement; yet, if they would bear another construc- 
tion, and I had explicitly said that such was not my meaning, 
it might have been compatible with the laws of common cour- 
tesy for my disavowal to have been candidly accepted. It 
has been thought allowable in debate, for a person, when mis- 
understood, to explain; ami right that his explanation should 
be admitted. But this privilege has not been allowed to me. 
I was misunderstood, — certainly misrepresented: and though 
I thought my .language sufficiently plain, yet I went, in my 
Second Letter, into a full and candid exposition of my senti- 
ments and viewsf and not only said, but shewed, that my 
meaning was not, and could not have been, such as you had 
stated. Yet after all this, you take it upon you to say, that 
you "cannot avoid the belief that my recollections on this 
point are imperfect;" you resolutely insist on your former in- 
terpretation, which I have explicitly disavowed, and refuse to 
admit my frank exposition of my own meaning. This, Sir, is 
carrying tli e claims of your "self respect very far: to an extent. 



10 

I believe, beyond what any courteous, and candid, and mod- 
est, and honourable man, to say nothing of a christian minis- 
ter, ever before attempted, 

I must here quote from your Remarks an extraordinary 
passage. "Dr. Worcester, however," you say, p. 12, "as- 
sures me that I have misrepresented him; and I have no dis- 
position to question the sincerity with which he now declares 
that he did not intend to communicate the sentiments which I 
ascribed to him. I cannot indeed avoid the belief, that his 
recollections on this point are imperfect, and that in the hur- 
ry of his thoughts and feelings, he was not so watchful over 
his motives as he now imagines." In the same style you say,p. 
4, "Dr. "Worcester, however, disclaims the feelings and inten- 
tions which I have ascribed to him. — That he is sincere in re- 
porting what now appears to him to have been the state of his 
mind during the composition of his first letter, I am far 
from denying. But on a subject like this, memory is some- 
times treacherous; and I confess I cannot shake off the con- 
viction, that some improper feelings, perhaps unsuspected by 
Dr. Worcester, occasionally guided his pen." Here, Sir, is 
an expedient to save one's "self respect" from the pain of a 
concession, and to fix upon an opponent an injurious charge, 
the whole credit of which, I do believe, belongs to you, and 
ought forever to remain in your uncontested possession: an 
expedient of which, I presume, the annals of controversy 
might be searched throughout in vain, for an example, a pro- 
totype, or a parallel. Will any reader in the world suppose 
that, in both or either of those instances, I really misremem- 
bered? — or that you seriously meant to be understood that I 
did misremember? Why then this spurious irony, — this way- 
ward circumlocution? Why not charge me directly with 
falsehood, as you had before done the Reviewers? 

You have had, Sir, a fair opportunity for a display of can- 
dour. You had misstated the import of an important part of 
my Letter. This was a different affair from that which was 
before between us, relating to the Reviewers. That was a 
question concerning the meaning of a third party, and, there- 
fore, concerning which I as well as you might misjudge; this 
was a question respecting my own meaning, and respecting 



ii 

which I could not mistake. I supposed you had wronged the 
Keviewers; I knew you had wronged me. Without, however, 
imputing to you any ill intention or motive,I remonstrated,ex~ 
plained, and called upon you to retract. It was only, in a 
christian spirit and manner, to acknowledge that you had 
misapprehended my meaning, — and the credit for ingenu- 
ous feeling, especially the consciousness of having done an 
act of magnanimous equity to an opponent, would have abun- 
dantly compensated for any self denial which there might 
have been in the case. But you have chosen a diiTerent 
course, and must look for a different reward. I can, however, 
assure you, Sir, that it would have afforded me much greater 
pleasure to have had occasion to acknowledge your generous 
candour, than I have found in making the kind of stricture 
which you have compelled me to make. 

III. Page 13, you make this statement. "Dr. Clark be- 
lieved, that the Father alone is the Supreme God, and that 
Jesus Christ is not the Supreme God, but derived his being, 
and all his power and honours from the Father, even by an act 
of the Father's power and will. He maintains, that as the 
scriptures have not taught us the manner in which the Son 
derived his existence from his Father, it is presumptuous to 
affirm, that the Son was created, or, that there was a time 
when he did not exist. On these subjects the word of God 
has not given us light, and therefore we ought to be silent. 
The author of Bible News in like manner affirms, that the 
Father only is the Supreme God, that Jesus is a distinct be- 
ing from God, and that he derives every thing from his Fath- 
er. He has some views relating to the "proper Sonship," of 
God, which neither liberal nor orthodox christians generally 
embrace. But the prevalent sentiments of liberal christians 
seem to me to accord substantially with the systems I have 
above described. Like Dr. Clark, the majority of this class 
feel that the scriptures have not taught the mode of Christ's 
derivation. They therefore do not call Christ a creature, but 
leave the subject in the obscurity in which they find it, carry- 
ing with them, however, an impression, that the scriptures as- 
cribe to Jesus the character of Son of God in a peculiarly higli 
sense, and in a sense in which it is ascribed to no other being; *' 



12 

Upon this statement I submit the following remarks. 
1. The appellation "liberal christians," is ambiguous ami 
indeterminate. In your first pamphlet you tell us, that 
•'liberal christians are scattered through all classes of chris- 
tians;" and that although "in this part of the country they 
are generally," yet "by no means universally Unitarians." 
And you somewhere, I think, estimate that about one third 
part of the ministers and christian professors in this common- 
wealth are of the liberal class. I have myself computed, that 
about this proportion are non-calvinistick; and it should seem 
that all these are included by you in the denomination of 
"liberal christians." Of these, however, I have supposed 
there are many, who are not Unitarians. They may have 
some difficulties and doubts respecting the terms in which the 
doctrine of the Trinity is often stated, and some diversities 
in the manner of conceiving and speaking of the doctrine, 
and yet believe in the true divinity of the Son, and of the 
Holy Spirit. If so, they ought not to be classed with Unita- 
rians. "Those," as justly observed by Bishop Huntingford, 
"who hold the doctrine of a Trinity, however individually 
they may give different explications of it, are nevertheless 
Trinitarians; as those, who protest against a particular 
church, although unhappily among themselves they have 
separated from each other, by multifarious divisions, and dis- 
criminate each other by subtle distinctions, implying even 
dimidiation, are nevertheless all protestants." 

Dr. Samuel Clark was not a Unitarian, and ought not to 
be so called or classed. He held to an "ever-bxessed 
Trinity." — to a Trinity of "Divine Persons," — Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit, who existed together "from the 
beginning." This is the substance of his scheme; and in 
this he agreed with orthodox Trinitarians, though in other 
respects he differed from them. And if, as it "seems" to you 
"the prevalent sentiments among liberal christians in this 
quarter of our country accord substantially with Dr. Clark's," 
then these "prevalent sentiments" are not Unitarian. t How 
large a proportion of those whom you would assign to the 
liberal class, arc Trinitarians, or believers in the essential 
divinity of the Son. and of the Holy Spirit, I do not know; 



13 

nor do I know in what manner they would severally explain, 
themselves upon this subject, or where they would choose to 
be considered as standing. I have, however, entertained the 
hope, that by the process of developement it would be found, 
that not a few of them are more orthodox than Dr. Clark; 
and that the Unitarian brotherhood is much less numerous, 
than you seem desirous of having* it understood to be. 

2. It appears from your statement, that the "prevalent 
sentiments of liberal christians" are exceedingly unsettled, 
indistinct, and indeterminate. "The majority of this class, 
you say, feel that the scriptures have not taught the mode of 
Christ's derivation. They therefore do not call Christ a 
creature, but leave the subject in the obscurity in which they 
find it, carrying with them, however, an impression, that the 
scriptures ascribe to Jesus the character of Son of God in 
a peculiarly high sense, and in a sense in which it is ascrib- 
ed to no other being." With these "liberal christians," then, 
it is a matter of utter uncertainty, of endless doubt, and, it 
would seem, of cold and lofty indifference, who the Saviour 
of the world is! — whether be is a created, or an uncreated 
being; whether he existed from eternity, or begun to exist in 
time; whether he is a God, who, though inferiour to the "su- 
preme God," has yet a rightful claim to religious worship, or 
only their fellow servant, to whom no divine honours belong! 
From other passages, on which I shall have occasion in 
another place to remark, it appears that the same uncertainty, 
and doubt, and indifference exist with these same "liberal 
christians," in regard to what Jesus Christ has done for 
them: — whether he died to expiate their sins with blood of 
inestimable merit, or whether "in consequence" merely "of 
what he has done and suffered, the punishment of sin is avert- 
ed from the penitent;" as it may have been, in consequence 
of the sufferings and labours, the instructions and interces- 
sions of Paul and other good men, by whose means sinners 
have been brought to repentance!— Of course, there must be 
similar uncertainty, doubt, and indifference, as to the obliga- 
tions which they owe to him; as to the love and trust, the 
thanks and honours to which lie is entitled.— Do they their 
honour the Son, even as they honour, or should honour the 



14 

Father? They do not know who or what the Son is. Are 
they blessed in putting their trust in him? They do not know 
to what extent, or for what purposes he is to be trusted. Do 
they delight to join in the heavenly anthem, "Worthy is the 
Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wis- 
dom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing? 
They do not know that he is worthy thus to be adored and 
praised! — Ah! where are we? Into what a region of frost, of 
darkness, of the shadow of death are we advancing!- — Is 
this, Sir, the light which is so ardently hailed, and so loudly 
proclaimed by the "rational christians," of this favoured age? 
Is it here that we are to find the grand consummation of di- 
vine knowledge, that "purer system of Christianity," to which 
you and your "liberal" brethren would guide mankind? Is 
it in this chilling, dismal clime, that professed christians of 
every name are to meet together in one blessed fellowship? 
No wonder then that Jews and Infidels, Mohammedans and 
Pagans are invited to participate in the blessedness.* And 
no wonder, that they who adore the Lord Jesus, as "the true 
God and eternal life," and delight in the ascription, "Untp 
him that loved us, and washed us from our sins, in his own 
blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his 
Father, — to him be glory and dominion forever and ever," 
should decline the invitation. 

"This," says our great Intercessor, "This is the life eter- 
nal, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus the Christ 
whom thou hast sent."f But in the knowledge of Jesus the 

* With intimations to this effect, the writings of Unitarians abound. 

■j- "What is said here of the only true God, seems said in opposition to the gods 
whom the heathtns worshipped; not in opposition to Jesus Christ himself who is 
called the true God by John in 1 Epist. v, 20." Bishop Pearce. 

"That our blessed Lord here speaks of the only true God, in distinction from 
idols, and not to the exclusion of himself, appears from his speaking of himself as 
the object of the same fiducial knowledge, with the Father, and by his distin- 
guishing himself from the Father, not by any essential title, but merely by his 
©facial character, viz. Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. And the same apostle 
who recorded this prayer, expressly says of Christ; This is the true God, and 
eternal life, in opposition to idoh:" Dr. Guise. 

"Those who deny the Divine nature of Christ, think they have a mighty argu- 
ment from this text, where Christ (as they say speaking to his Father) calleth. 
him the only true (iud. tint divines answer, tUajt the term only, or alone, is n* 



15 

Christ, must not liberal christians, if your account of them is 
correct be lamentably wanting? 

"The majority of this class," you say, "feel that the scrip- 
tures have not taught the mode of Christ's derivation. 
And well they may feel this: since the scriptures declare, 
that "his goings forth have been of old, even from everlast- 
ing;" — that "in the beginning he was with God, and was 
God;" — that he is "the same yesterday, and to day, and for- 
ever," — " Alpha and. Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, 
the First and the Last."— Your oracle indeed, Dr. Clark* 
has a long section, entitled, "The passages in which he 
[Christ] is declared to be subordinate to the Father; deriving 
his being (in an incomprehensible manner) from Him, receiv- 
ing from him his divine power, authority and other attributes," 
&e. And under this head, in his own imposing manner, he 
has arranged about two hundred and forty texts; in not one 
of which, I feel perfectly safe in saying, is it "declared that 
Christ derived his being and divine attributes from the 
Father." It is not then strange, that "the scriptures have 
not taught the mode of his derivation." And since you feel 
this, it might be well if you would acknowledge what the 
scriptures do teach, — that as God he existed with the Father 
from eternity. 

Christ and the great work of redemption by him, is the 
grand subject of the scriptures, from the beginning to the 
end. Is it then credible, that, after all, the scriptures have 
not informed us, who or what Christ is, — whether God or a 
mere creature, — nor what he has done for us, nor how we 
are to be saved by him, nor what regards and honours are 
due from us to him? Is it credible, that the inspired writings 
have left these primary subjects in such "obscurity," that 

to be applied to thee, but to the term God; and the sense this: to know thee to 
be that God which is tlie only trve God; and this appearelh from 1 John v, 20, 
where Christ is said to be the true God, which could not be if the Father were 
the only true God, considered as another [God] from the Son. The terra only 
or alone is not exclusive of the other two persons in the Trinity, but only of idols, 
the gods of the heathen which are no gods.— Our Saviour saith it is life' eternal 
to know him ~vho is the only true God; — he adds, and Jesus Christ whom thou 
hast sent: by which he lets us know, that the Father e&nQOt be savingly knows, 
bftt.4n and by the Son." Poole's Cttntinuators. 



16 

©ne man may acknowledge him as God, one and co-equal with 
the Father, another, only as a mere man, "fallible and pec- 
cable like other men," and a third as a demigod, or some 
unknown intermediate being, between the Creator and crea- 
tures, — that some may believe his death to have been an ex- 
piatory sacrifice for the sins of the world, and others that he 
died only as a witness to the truth, — that some may trust for 
justification and salvation only in his vicarious merits, and 
others in their own virtues,— and yet all of them have an 
equal claim to the name and privileges of christian be- 
lievers? Is it credible, that in a divine revelation, a principal 
object of which is to guard mankind against idolatry, and to 
teach them the true worship, the representations are such as 
to make the great body of christians in every age idolaters, — 
as the fact certainly is, if Christ is not truly God! Surely 
the man wiio can believe all this, ought to charge no other 
man in the world with strange or enormous credulity. 

3. "The majority of liberal christians," you say, "carry 
with them an impression, that the scriptures ascribe to Jesus 
the character of Son of God in a peculiarly high sense, and 
in a sense in which it is ascribed to no other being." Great 
stress is laid by the deniers of the orthodox doctrine of the 
Trinity, on this appellation, Son of God: as if it must ne- 
cessarily denote a separate being, infinitely below the Father, 
and as if the sonship of Christ were denied by Trinitarians. 
Neither the one nor the other of these assumptions is admit- 
ted. Trinitarians not merely "carry with them an impres- 
sion," but have a firm belief, that "the scriptures ascribe to 
Jesus the character of Son of God, in a sense in which it is 
ascribed to no other being." Some of them indeed understand 
the scriptures as ascribing this character to him in his medi- 
atorial capacity and human nature only, and others to his 
original existence and his divine nature; but all of them be- 
lieve in his peculiar sonship, and in his essential divinity; 
all of them hold that he is at once the Son of God, and him- 
self also God. 

'What an absurdity, you will say, is this! — The Son of 
Q 0{ ] — himself God! — How can he bo the Son of himself!* 
Unitarians are perpetually stumbling at this stumbling stone. 



and casting it in the way of others. They impose upon 
themselves and upon others, by a species of sophistry, by 
which no wise man ought to be deceived. In this trite ob- 
jection, as is very common with you in other instances, you 
beg the main question in debate. Only admit the Trinita- 
rian distinction of Persons in the Godhead, and the pretend- 
ed absurdity vanishes at once. If there are in the Godhead, 
three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each of 
these three in inseparable union with the other two is God; 
then there is no absurdity in saying that Jesus Christ is 
both the Son of God, and himself God. This does not sup- 
pose, or imply, that he is the Son of himself; it only imports 
that he is the Son of the Father. 

Neither does his being Son imply inferiority in nature to 
the Father. On the contrary, it imports sameness and 
equality of nature. Was not David of the same nature with 
Jesse, whose son he was, and of equal attributes and dignity? 
Is not a true and proper son always of the same nature with 
his father? Jesus is called the son of man, because he par- 
takes of human nature and is truly man. Why then should 
we not understand, that he is called the Son of God, the 
Only Begotten of the Father, because he also partakes 
of the divine nature, and is truly God. — It was so under- 
stood by the Jews, to whom the appellation, Son of God, as 
belonging to the Messiah, was familiar. Jesus said to them, 
"My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." Therefore the 
Jews sought to kill him, because he — said that God was his 
Father; [original, his own or proper Father] "making himself 
eojjal with God." They understood him to call God his 
Father, not in a sense in which angels and men may call him 
their Father, but in a peculiarly high sense; in a sense which. 
made God his natural Father, and himself in nature divine 
and equal with the Father. It was upon this very ground, 
that they afterwards persisted in charging him with blas- 
phemy, and finally condemned him to death. — Jesus said to 
Nathanael, "Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast 
under the figtree, I saw thee." Perceiving in this the divine 
attribute of omniscience, Nathanael replied, "Rabbi, thou 
trttheSon of God," evidently understanding this appella 



18 

tion to import true divinity. It cannot reasonably be doubts 
ed, that such was the understanding of Peter and of Thomas, 
and the other disciples, when they acknowledged Jesus to 
be "the Christ, the Son or the living God," and wor- 
shipped Mm as their "Lord and their God." 

The same was the understanding of the primitive Fathers. 
In his epistle to the Ephesians, St. Ignatius, who had con- 
versed with the apostles, says, "There is one Physician, 
both fleshly and spiritual; made and not made; God incar- 
nate, true life in death; both of Mary and oe God; even 
Jesus Christ our Lord."* This passage shews not only that 
the blessed martyr acknowledged Jesus Christ to be God, of 
which his epistles afford most abundant evidence; but also 
that he understood Christ to be the Son of God in such a 
sense as to be of the same nature with the Father; that as 
the Son of Mary, he was made, and was man, as the Son of 
God, not made, and himself God. "If," says Justin Martyr, 
in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, "If ye had considered 
the things spoken by the prophets, ye would not have denied 
Christ to be God, who is the Son of the wibegotten and ineffa- 
ble God." Gregory Nyssen, as quoted by Dr. Waterlund,f 
speaking of the heretic Eunomius, says, "He says there is 
one only God Almighty. If he means a Father under the 
name of Almighty, he says the same that we do, and nothing 
different; but if he intends it of an almighty who is not a 
Father, lie may preach circumcision if he pleases, along with 
his other Jewish tenets. The faith of christians looks to a 
Father. The Father indeed is all: [all things] he is most 
high, almighty, King of kings, and Lord of lords. Whatev- 
er titles sound high and great, they belong to the Father; 
and all things that are the Father's belong to the Son." The 
argument is, a Father implies a son of the same nature and 
attributes. — To the same effect Dionysius of Alexandria 
says, "The Father being eternal the Son must be eternal too, 
Light of Light. The names by me mentioned, [Father and 
Son] are undivided and inseparable. When I named the 
Father before I mentioned the Son, I signified the Son in the 
Father. If any of my false accusers suspect that because I 

* Wake's Apostolic Fathers. f 0r » ^ e Trinity, chap. vi.. 



19 

called God Creator and Former of all things, I made him 
Creator of Christ, let him consider that I before styled him 
Father, and so the Son was included in him." 

Such was the doctrine of the primitive church, as might 
be shewn at large by many quotations. The apostles and 
the Fathers held Christ to be the Son of God not only "in a 
peculiarly high sense, 55 but in a sense the highest possible: 
in a sense which implied his true divinity, his being of the 
same nature and one with the Father. 

IV. A plain scriptural exhibition of the doctrine of the 
Trinity may serve to shew the fallacy and futility of many 
of your objections and representations, and the unsoundness 
and corruptness of your general system. 

Dr. Clark, as before stated, held to a Trinity of Divine 
Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. "With the first and 
supreme Cause, or Father of all things, 55 he says, "there has 
existed from the beginning a second Divine Person, which 
is his Word or Son. 55 — "With the Father and the Son, there 
has existed from the beginning a third Divine Person, 
which is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. 55 * Thus 
far he agrees with orthodox Trinitarians, ancient and mod- 
ern, excepting that he makes the Father, separately consider- 
ed, "the first and supreme Cause of all things; 55 and thus 
far, with the specified exception, he proves his doctrine by 
most abundant and decisive scriptural testimony, establish- 
ing, beyond all reasonable debate, the personal distinction, 
and the co-existence before all ages of the Divine Three. 

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then, are either three 
Divine Persons united in one Godhead, or else three separate 
Divine Beings. The former is the orthodox doctrine, the 
latter is the doctrine of Dr. Clark. But if the three Divine 
Persons are so many distinct beings, having each a separate 
existence, then must there not be three Gods.V-Dr. Clark in- 
deed held, as you correctly state, that <<the Father alone is the 
supreme God; 5 ' and this he asserts with astonishing assur- 
ance, and in the way of begging the main question which it 
behoved him to prove. Be it however even so, that the Fa- 

* Scripture Doctrine, Part II. Sections 2 and 3. 



20 

ther alone is the supreme God; then the other Divine Per- 
sons are two inferiour Deities This conclusion, so ohvious 
and unavoidable, is neither denied nor directly affirmed in 
Dr. Clark's book, but is favoured and forced upon the mind 
by the entire train of his argument. This is the grand ab- 
surdity of his most absurd system. If there was ever a 
Tritheist in Christendom, Dr. Clark was one,- and if "the lib- 
eral christians in this part of our country agree substantially 
with Dr. Clark," instead of being Unitarians, they are 
Tritheists. 

In opposition to this tritheistical scheme, orthodox chris- 
tians hold that the three Divine Persons are united in one 
Godhead. This we believe to be the plain scriptural doc- 
trine: for while the scriptures distinctly reveal to us the Fa- 
ther, Son, and Holy Spirit, and abundantly ascribe to each 
of the Three, divine names, attributes, works, and honours; 
yet they assure us throughout, that there is but one God, 
and utterly preclude the doctrine of inferiour Deities. 

Though the unity of the three Divine Persons in one God- 
head involves mystery which, probably, no finite mind will 
ever fully explore; yet the scriptures open to us a vista of 
this wonderful glory. Jesus in his memorable intercessory 
prayer witli his disciples, says, "Neither pray I for these 
alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through 
their word; that they all may be one; as thou Father art 
in me and I in thee, that they all may be one in us." 
And christians are abundantly exhorted in the scriptures to 
seek and preserve the most perfect unity. — In what does this 
unity consist? Undoubtedly in being, as St. Paul expresses it, 
"perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same 
judgment," — "being knit together in love." When christians 
are thus in mind, in judgment, and in love, perfectly joined 
and knit together, they are in a most important and interest- 
ing sense one. They have "one Spirit and one hope; — one 
Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who 
is in them all." They have the same views of divine truth, — 
of God, of Christ, of the Holy Spirit,— of the gospel, of the 
<vay of holiness and life, of the kingdom of grace and of glo- 
ry: they love and seek the same tilings: their thoughts, their 



feelings, their desires, their pursuits are in harmony. — The 
more nearly christians think, and speak, and love, and pur- 
sue the same things, and the more intimately they are ac- 
quainted with each others minds and hearts, the closer and 
the more blessed is their union. Were they perfectly holy; 
had they also exactly the same thoughts on every subject, 
the same views of every object, the same affections and re- 
gards towards every being and thing; and had they moreover 
a perfect knowledge of each others minds and hearts, their 
union would be most complete. Though a union so complete 
probably can never exist between finite minds, as they will 
always have different capacities and degrees of knowledge, 
and can never be perfectly intimate with all the feelings and 
thoughts of each other; yet a union of this kind does exist in 
greater or less degree among believers, and will increase as 
they are more and more sanctified through the truth, and as 
they advance in the knowledge of God, of Christ, and of one 
another, until it attain its highest perfection in the heavenly 
world. — This is the oneness into which Jesus prayed that his 
people might be brought, and which he resembled to that 
which exists between him and his Father. 

The union, however, of Christ's people, whatever resem- 
blance it may bear, falls infinitely short of the unity of the 
ever-blessed Trinity. "I," says Christ, "I and the Father 
are one." "Believe me, that I am in the Father and the Fa- 
ther in me." "No man hath seen God at any time; the on- 
ly begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath 
declared him." "As the Father knoweth me, even so know J 
the Father." "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what 
[but as, Campbell's Translation] he seeth the Father do; for 
what things soever he doeth, these also doetli the Son like 
wise." "The Father loveth the Son." "I love the Father."* 
These passages express all that is above described, as com- 
prised in the union of Christ's people, and vastly more. — The 
Son is in the bosom of the Father; perfectly intimate with the 
Father, and with all his mind and heart. Jis the Father known 
him, even so he knows the Father. It will not be doubted even 
by Unitarians, that the Father knows the Son perfectly, as 
he knows all other beings: knows him intuitively: has an 

* John x, 30. .\, 15. \iv, 11. v, 19. iii, 35. xit, 31 



r 

immediate, intimate, complete perception of all that is in him. 
Even so then the Son knows the Father; has an intuitive 
perception, an intimate and perfect knowledge of all his Fa- 
ther's infinite mind and will. The Son can do nothing of 
himself, hut as he seeth the Father do. Such is his union with 
the Father, so perfectly one is his will with the Father's will, 
that he cannot act separately or by himself; he can do noth- 
ing but in union with the Father, and as the Father does. 
But what things soever tJie Father doeth, these also doeth the 
Son [o/xo/ws] in the same manner. Such is their co-operation, 
their unity of will, and of action, that all that is done by the 
Father is in the same manner, and at the same time, done by 
the Son. The Father lores the Son, and the Son loves the Fa- 
ther, with perfect, infinite love. 

But if the Son knows the Father even as the Father knows 
him, intuitively and perfectly; then he knows all that the 
Father knows. If he can do nothing, otherwise than in 
union with the Father; but does all things which the Father 
does, and as the Father does them; then his will and his pow- 
er are the same with the will and the power of the Father. 
And if the Father and the Son have the same knowledge and 
wisdom, the same will and power, and are perfect in mutual 
love; then they must regard all other beings and things with 
the same views, the same feelings, and the same purposes. — 
The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. All the 
infinite knowledge, and power, and wisdom, and goodness of 
the Father are in the Son. "In him dwelleth all the fulness 
of the Godhead bodily." "He is the brightness of the Father's 
glory, and the express image of his person." Therefore he 
says, "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also." — 
Such is the unity of the Father and the Son. 

Of the Holy Spirit we read:* "The Spirit searcheth all 
things, yea the deep things [ra /3«Svj, the depths] of God. For 
what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of 
man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no 
man, but the Spirit of God." — The Holy Spirit searcheth even 
the depths of God. He then must know the Father and the 
Son, even as they know him. He knows the things of 

* 1 Cor. ii, 10, 11. 



25 

Hod, as the spirit of a man knows what is in the man, that 
is, by intuition, by consciousness. As the spirit of a man 
is conscious to all that is- in him, — knows intuitively his un- 
derstanding, and will, and affections, his thoughts, volitions, 
and feelings; so the Holy Spirit is conscious to all that is in 
God; not only in himself personally considered, but also in 
the Father and in the Son: intuitively knows all the attri- 
butes, thoughts, affections, designs, and acts of the God- 
head. — All the knowledge, then, all the wisdom, all the pow- 
er, all the goodness, which are in the Father and in the Son, 
are also in the Holy Spirit. Accordingly he is made known 
to us, as the Spirit of wisdom and of knowledge, of grace 
and of holiness, of comfort and of fellowship; who reveals 
the mind and will of God to men, — "convinces the world of 
sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, — renews whom he will 
after the image of God, and dwells in all the saints, — acts in 
concurrence with the Father and the Son in the great econ- 
omy of redemption, and carries into effect the glorious de- 
signs of divine wisdom and mercy. "When he the Spirit of 
truth is come," says Christ, "he shall guide you into all 
truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he 
shall hear that shall he speak." He shall not act by himself 
alone, but only in union with the Father and the Son. "He 
shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew 
it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine^ 
thereforesaid I, he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto 
you." According to the divine economy, all things pertain- 
ing to the salvation of mankind, are first the Father's, then 
the Son's, and then the Holy Spirit's, to be by him dispensed, 
agreeably to the will of all the Three. 

From this plain, scriptural view, it appears that the unity 
of the three Divine Persons is the highest and most perfect 
possible: not merely a moral union, such as exists between 
holy men and angels, but an essential oneness, such as consti- 
tutes one Godhead. If all the knowledge, and wisdom, and 
power, and goodness of the Father arc also in the Son and 
in the Holy Spirit; then in their nature, in their attributes, 
in their designs, in their works, in their blessedness, in their 
glory, they are one. They are also essentially equaL ench 



24 

to the other: for all that is in the Father, is in the Son, and 
in the Holy Spirit. What the Father is, the Son is, and the 
Holy Spirit is; what the Father knows, the Son knows, and 
the Holy Spirit knows; what the Father wills, the Son wills, 
and the Holy Spirit wills; what the Father does, the Son 
does, and the Holy Spirit does; what the Father enjoys, the 
Son enjoys, and the Holy Spirit enjoys. They exist, and 
act, and are blessed forevermore, as one God. This ac- 
counts in the most satisfactory manner, for the scriptures as- 
cribing, as they do abundantly ascribe to each of the adorable 
Three, the same divine names, attributes, works, and hon- 
ours. 

In the Holy Trinity, however, though there is an essential 
equality, yet there is order, and there is subordination. 
The Father is first, the Son is second, the Holy Spirit is 
third, in order; and in relation especially to the great work 
of redemption, as the scriptures most plainly represent, the 
Son is subordinate to the Father, and the Holy Spirit, both 
to the Father and the Son. This sufficiently accounts for the 
pre-eminence which the scriptures assign to the Father, and 
from which Unitarians, and even Dr. Clark, most un- 
warrantably conclude that "the Father alone is the supreme 
God," and that the Son and Holy Spirit are inferiour beings; 
as if there could be no such thing asjirst among equals, and 
as if subordination necessarily implied inequality; when, to ev- 
ery person of the least reflection or observation, the contra- 
ry is manifest. This therefore might suffice for an answer 
to the hackneyed Unitarian objection, founded on such pas- 
sages of scripture as seem to import an inferiority of the Son 
to the Father: an objection which was answered in my sec- 
ond Letter, as it had been before a thousand times answered; 
but which nevertheless, you bring forward in your Remarks, 
p. 20, with an air of assurance and shout of triumph, as if it 
were fresh, and new, and absolutely unanswerable; and as if 
it were not at all incumbent on you to answer our argument, 
founded on the passages, in which the Son is represented as 
being essentially equal and one with the Father. It may be 
well however just to remark further and anew, that not only 
is the Son the second in the order of the Trinity, but, for our 



25 

.redemption, he made himself of no reputation, took upon him 
the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man. 
And surely it is not wonderful, that, while in his state of hu- 
miliation he appeared in fashion as a man, he should utter 
expressions, importing inequality; for as man he was une- 
qual, infinitely unequal to God. 

After Dr. Clark and others, you seem very fond of repeat- 
ing, that "the Father alone is the supreme God;" and "we 
dare not, we dare not," you earnestly say, "approach Jesus 
Christ as the only living, the only true God." — There was 
occasion in old time for the serious interrogation, "Will ye 
accept his Person? Will ye contend for God?" Let me entreat 
you, Sir, not to imagine, that you do honour to the Father, 
by refusing to honour the Son. The Father does not exist 
"alone," nor is he alone the supreme God. Existing in es- 
sential, inseparable union with the Son and the Holy Spirit, 
whom he loves with infinite delight, it is only in union with 
them, being himself in them and they in him, that he is the 
supreme God. Neither does the Son exist alone, nor is he 
separately considered, "the only living, the only true God." 
But existing in essential, inseparable union with the Father 
and the Holy Spirit, he in them and they in him, he is the 
living and true God, — "the true God and eternal: 
life." We therefore dare not, we dare not refuse to honour 
him, even as we honour the Father. The Holy Spirit also, 
in essential, inseparable union with the Father, and the Son, 
he in them and they in him, is the living, true, and supreme 
God; and being so revealed to us, there was no occasion for 
an express command to worship him, as there was for one to 
worship Christ in his mediatorial character. There are not 
wanting examples, however, in the scriptures of the Holy 
Spirit being religiously invoked. And in that very institu- 
tion, by which we are initiated into the christian community, 
a solemn act of worship is prescribed, to be done to the Holy 
Spirit in union with the other Divine Persons. The high 
command is, "Go, and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
the name of the Father, ana 4 of the Son, and of the Holt 
Spirit. Shall men then dare to "put asunder what are joined 
together" in the vert name and nature of God/ 



"Christianity/' says the Bishop of* Durham,* whom you 
very justly style the "profound Butler," "Christianity in 
not only an external institution of natural religion, and a new 
promulgation of God's general providence, as righteous gov- 
ernor and judge of the world; but it contains also a revelation 
of a particular dispensation of providence, carrying on 
by his Son and Spirit* for the recovery and salvation of man- 
kind, who are represented in Scrip(wre to be hi a state of rtjijt. 
And in consequence of this revelation being made, we arc 
commanded to be baptized, not only in the name of the Father, 
but also of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and other obliga- 
tions of duty, unknown before, to the Son and the Holy Ghost, 
are revealed.- — The essence of natural religion may be said 
to consist in religious regards to God the Father Almighty; 
and tlie essence of revealed religion, as distinguislied from nat- 
ural, to consist in religious regards to the Son and the Holy 
Ghost And the obligation we are tinder, of paying these relig- 
ious regards to each of these Divine Persons respectively, arise* 
from the respective relations which ihef- each stand in to us. 
How these relations are made know n, whether by reason or 
revelation, makes no alteration in the case;, beeause ilic duties 
arise out of the relations themselves, not out of the manner in which 
we are informed of them. The Son and Spirit have each his 
proper office, in that great dispensation of Providence, the 
redemption of the world; the one our Mediator, the other our 
Sanctifier. Does not then tfie duty of religious regards to both 
these Divine Persons as immediately arise, to ilie view ofreason 9 
out of the very nature of these offices and relations, as the inward 
good will and kind intention, which we owe to our fellow 
creatures arises out of the common relation between us and 
them. If therefore Christ be indeed the Mediator between 
God and man, i. e* if Christianity be true; if he be indeed our 
Lord, our Saviour, and our God, — no one can say what may 
follow, not only the obstinate, but the careless disregard to him 
in those high relations, f 

* Analogy, Part II. Chapter I. See. 2.* . 

f "It is the ever blessed Trinity we invoke," says Dr. Sherlock, "when we 
prajj Qur Father, which art in heaven. For as they are inseparably One God,. 



27 

This, Sir, I deem a very sufficient answer to what you have 
«o boldly and unwaiTantably objected to the worship of the 
Son and the Holy Spirit, both in the body of your Remarks, 
^pajge 20, and in your Note, page 44, .where you take it upon 
you to speak to its, as you are not a little accustomed to do, 
in the style and the tone of "a master of Israel" as follows: 
"We find not one passage in the scriptures commanding us 
to worship the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; not one prece- 
dent which authorizes such worship, and while we feel our- 
selves hound to exercise christian candour towards those who 
have adopted, this form of worship," (i.e. the .great body of 
orthodox christians in all ages!) "wcare not without solemn 
apprehension, that, in this respect, they are guilty of irrev- 
erence towards the word of God, and of preferring to it the 
commandments and inventions of men." — We ought doubtless 
to listen attentively to the voice of serious admonition, from 
■whatever quarter it may come; but I can assure you, Sir, 
I am by no means convinced that the many thousands of holy 
•men in the orthodox. church of -Christ, who, from the day« 
of the apostles to the present, have worshipped. the dSathflg, 

ao tjhey are the inseparable Object of our worship; since this great mystery of a 
Trinity in Unity is so plainly revealed to us, we cannot worship this one Supreme 
God, but we must direet our worship to all the three Divine Pefsons in the 
unity of the same Godhead; for we do not worship this one Supreme God, un- 
less we worship Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: and therefore whether we invoke 
each Person distinctly, or pray only to God, by the name of the most High God, 
or by the name of Father, or the Father of our Lord Jesus^Ghrist it isall one; 
ibr Father, Son, andHgly Ghesfc is the One Supreme-?God, and the entire Objeet 
of our worship: ;ind whoever Avorships one God, .but not Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost, does not wprship the true God, not the God of the Christians. Before 
this was so plainly revealed, it was sufficient to worship One Supreme God, with- 
out any conception of the distinct -Persons inthe Godhead; but when it is plainly 
revealed to us, : that this One Supreme God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
whoever does not worship Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, does not worship the 
true God; for the true God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and there is no God 
besides him; which J Avould desire our Unitarians (as they falsely call themselves) 
and our 2>>eis<s ^carefully to consider. If any thing, be, fundamental in religion, it 
te the worship of the One true God, and if Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be this 
One true God, those who worship a God, • who is not Father, Son, and Holy 
-Ghost, do not worshipthe true God, and that I think is the true notion of idola- 
try. So that these men are so far from being christians, that I cannot see how 
they are worshippers of the true God: which should at least make them con- 
cerned to examine this matter with more care and less prejudice than they have 
: yet done."— Vindication of the DoctrUic cf the Trinity. Sec. VI. 



28 

Son, and Holy Spirit, have been "valiant for the truth upon 
the earth," and "shone as lights in the world" have had less 
reverence for the word of God, than those, who, from age to 
age, have either "gone out from them because they were 
not of them," or else have laboured more "privily," to intro- 
duce new doctrines, subversive of their holy faith and wor- 
ship. 

You say, p. 18, "We do indeed object to the Trinity that 
as it is often stated, it is an unintelligible proposition; and 
we say, that it is out of our power to believe a proposition 
of which we do not know the meaning." In p. 23, you rep- 
resent the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, and the union 
of the Divine and human natures in the person of Christ, as 
mere "phrases which cannot be denned, which convey to 
common minds no more meaning than words of an unknown 
tongue, and present to the learned oidy flitting shadows of 
thought, instead of clear and steady conceptions." And ex- 
pressions to the same effect are scattered unsparingly in all 
your pamphlets, and in most Unitarian writings. The de- 
sign is obvious. 

But, Sir, do you believe no proposition of which you do 
not know the meaning? Take the proposition which you and 
other Unitarians would make the single essential article of 
the christian creed: Jesns is the Christ, the Son of the living 
God. Do you understand the meaning of this proposition? 
It is plain from what has before been exhibited, that you do 
not. You do not know who or what Christ is: whether a 
created, or an uncreated being; whether a creature whose ex- 
istence had a beginning, or a demigod, or a "somewhat" who 
existed from eternity. As little do you know the meaning of 
the appellation, the Son of God. You "carry with you in- 
deed an impression, that Jesus is the Son of God in a pecul- 
iarly high sense," but in what sense you do not understand. 
According to your own statement then, you do not believe 
the proposition, that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the liv- 
ing God!" Do not believe what you hold to be the single es- 
sential article of the christian faith! — Take another very 
simple proposition, which, though you will not allow it to be 
essential, holds nevertheless a distinguished place in the 



29 

christian scriptures: Christ died for our sins. Of this propo- 
sition you understand neither the subject nor the predicate. 
Concerning Christ, the subject, as already shewn, you are in 
infinite doubt; nor do you any better understand the mean- 
ing of the predicate, died for our sins. That some sort of 
being called Christ, in some sense died for our sins, you 
seem to suppose; but what sort of being he is, or in what 
sense he died for our sins, you do not know. This proposi- 
tion, then, according to your declaration, you do not believe. 
Both these scriptural propositions, Jesus is the Christ, and 
Chnst died for our sins, are "phrases which'* to your mind 
"convey no more meaning than words of an unknown tongue, 
and present only flitting shadows of thought instead of clear 
and steady conceptions." It is so also, it should .seem, in re- 
gard to many, if not most other, important scriptural propo- 
sitions. 

I shall not however concede, that the case js the same with 
us in regard to the Trinity. I do believe that we under- 
stand the meaning of the proposition, the Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit are three Divine Persons in one God. To remove 
a stumbling-block out of the way of Unitarians? we have in- 
deed said, that we use the term, person, because we have no 
better word; and that we are not tenacious of the name, pro- 
vided we have the thing. But this accommodating conces- 
sion you attempt to ridicule. The term, person, indeed, when 
applied to created beings, denotes an intelligent agent, who 
has a separate existence. In this particular respect, we do 
not consider the term as applicable to the Father, Son, or 
Holy Spirit. For myself, however, I have not the least 
difficulty in applying the term to each of the Divine 
Three. \ do believe that though they have not each a 
separate existence, but are all essentially united in one God; 
yet they are really and truly intelligent agents, each possess- 
ing all divine attributes, and performing in union with the 
other two. all divine works. And so far as I can perceive, I 
have as clear an understanding of the meaning of person, 
when applied to the three Divine agents united in one God, 
as when applied to angels or men, who have each a separate 
existence. 1 do no^ see, nor do I believe that you or any 



so 

other man can shew, A'hy three Divine Persons may not sw 
exist as to be one God, as well as tliree human persons so as 
to be tliree men; nor why the one God may not exist in three 
Persons as well as in one. 

By no means do I admit, that we do not know the mean- 
ing of the proposition, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 
are three Divine Persons in one God. It is a proposition af- 
firming a plain matter of fact; and the matter of fact we un- 
derstand and believe. The scriptures reveal to us the adora- 
ble Tliree, distinctly, and by name; to each of the Three they 
ascribe divine names, attributes, works, and honours; and 
yet they assure us that Jehovah our God [ Aleim, Gods] is one 
Jehovah. From the scriptures then w T e learn, and under- 
stand, that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit: that 
the Father possesses divine attributes, and is therefore God; 
that the Son possesses divine attributes, and is thereforo 
God; that the Holy Spirit also possesses divine attributes, 
and is therefore God; and that the divine Three so exist to- 
gether as to be one God. Now what is there in all this 
which, as matter of fact, we do not understand? — If you say 
we cannot understand how three divine Persons can 50 exist 
as to be one God, that is quite another thing; a thing not 
contained in the proposition; and therefore not necessary to 
be understood, in order to the doctrine being understood, and 
believed. The proposition does not pretend to declare the 
nature or manner of the union; but merely affirms the fact. 
And this we understand, as well as you understand the sim- 
ple proposition, tliere is a God, How there can be a God, or 
how he exists, you do not understand. You may have much 
to say about self-existence, necessary being, infinity, and 
eternity, but you comprehend none of these things.-^-So of 
other facts.—God is omnipresent; but how he is in every 
place, you do not understand, God is omniscient; tout how he 
knows all things, you do not understand. God made the 
worlds out of nothing; but how he made them you do not un- 
derstand. Your soul and body are united in one man; but 
how they are united you do not know. You think; but how 
you cannot tell. You walk; but how your will moves your 
jbody, yon cannot explain. The sun warms the earth; bu-i 



31 

how? Vegetables grow out of the ground; how? Animals are 
nourished by food; liow? — There is no end to this sort of 
statement and inquiry; for you do not know how any thing 
exists, or moves, or acts. You understand and you believe the 
plain matters of fact; hut how things can be so, is utterly be- 
yond your power to comprehend. 

I do not deny, but have freely admitted that there is mys- 
tery in the Trinity. The mystery, however, does not lie in 
the matter of fact, as stated in the proposition, that three Di- 
vine Persons are one God, or that the one God exists in three 
J)ivine Persons; for this is revealed with sufficient clearness. 
The mystery lies in something beyond; something not con- 
tained in the proposition; something not revealed, but about 
which there may be endless speculation without any satisfac- 
tory results, it is so with respect to every thing else. The 
being of God, in the simplest statement of the truth, involves 
mystery upon mystery in unlimited accumulation. Yet a 
plain unsophisticated man finds no difficulty in understanding, 
or in believing the proposition, there is a God. No more 
'does he find any difficulty, in understanding, or in believing 
the proposition, that God exists in three persons. 

You may very well, therefore, spare yourself the concern 
which you would seem to feel for common christians. The 
plain humble christian, who reads his Bible much more, and 
to much better purpose, than the wise men of the world by 
whom he is despised, finds that in that sacred book all divine 
attributes, works, and honours are ascribed to the Father, who 
gave the Son to die for him; that the same divine attributes, 
works, and honours are ascribed to the Son, his adored Re- 
deemer and Saviour; and the same to the Holy Spirit, his 
gracious Sanctifier and Comforter. He therefore under- 
stands that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three 
Divine Persons in one God: and accordingly he believes, 
loves, and adores; undisturbed by the metaphysical and dia- 
lectical speculations, and the critical and sophistical subtili- 
ties of men, who, not content with the truth as divinely re- 
vealed, bewilder themselves, and labour to involve others, in 
endless perplexities and mazes: — -just as plain men under- 
stand, believe, and act upon, other truths and faets, dearly 



presented to their minds; while speculatists and philosophers, 
unable to account how things can be so, employ themselves 
in raising endless difficulties and objections; until one denies 
the existence of matter, another, the existence of created spir- 
its, a third, the existence of a God, and thus between them 
all contrive to annihilate the universe. It is as true now as 
ever it was, and as much a reason of holy thankfulness, that 
the "things which are hidden from the wise and prudent are 
revealed unto babes." "The meek he will guide in judg- 
ment; the meek he will teach his ways." 

The objection of mystery, which you and other Unitarians 
are perpetually urging against the Trinity, might be urged, 
and has been urged, with equal reason, and with equal force, 
against all the principal doctrines of religion, both natural 
and revealed. If we are to fly before this objection, we must 
fly not only from orthodoxy to unitarianism, but from uni- 
tarianism to Deism, from Deism to atheism, and from athe- 
ism to universal skepticism. If the pretensions of the "ra- 
tional christian" to superiour wisdom, because, to avoid mys- # 
tery, he denies the Trinity, are well founded; then for the 
same reason, the deist is wiser than the rational christian, 
the atheist is wiser than the deist, and the universal skeptick 
is the wisest man of all. And upon this scale, I suppose, 
the pretensions to wisdom are actually graduated. 

"That this is a very mysterious doctrine," says Bishop 
Porteus, "we do not deny; but it is not more so than many 
other doctrines of the christian revelation, which we all ad- 
mit, and which we cannot reject without subverting the 
foundation, and destroying the very substance and essence of 
our religion. The miraculous birth and incarnation of our 
blessed Lord, his union of the human nature with the divine, 
his redemption of mankind, and his expiation of their sins oy 
his death on the cross; — these are doctrines plainly taught in 
scripture, and yet as incomprehensible to our finite under- 
standings, as the doctrine of three Persons and one God. 
But what we contend for in all these instances is, that these 
mysteries, although confessedly above our reason, are not 
contrary to it. This is a plain and well known distinction, 
and in the present case an incontrovertible one. No one for 



S3 

instance can say, that the supposition of three Persons in one 
God is contrary to reason. We cannot, indeed > comprehend 
such a distinction in the divine nature; but unless we know 
perfectly what that nature is, it is impossible for us to say 
that such a distinction may not subsist in it consistent with 
its unity.— Let not then the mysteries of the gospel ever be a 
rock of offence to you, or in any degree shake the constancy 
of your faith. They are inseparable from any religion, that 
is suited to the nature, to the wants, and to the fallen state of 
such a creature as man. — Laying aside all the superfluity of 
learning, and all the pride of human wisdom, let us hold fast 
to the profession of our faith, without wavering and without 
cavilling at what we cannot comprehend. — Let us resolutely 
beat down every bold imagination, every high thing that ex- 
alteth itself against the mysterious truths of the gospel; 
bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of 
Christ, and receiving with meekness the ingrafted word, 
which is able to save our souls*" 3 * 

No, Sir, it is not for "flitting shadows of thought," that 
we contend; it is- for most substantial realities. It is for 
three Divine Persons, of illimitable perfection and glory, 

* On Matt. Lee. xxiv. Does not, Sir, the Bishop of London in this passage, 
show as much of the meekness of wisdom, and of the spirit of the gospel, as your 
fraternity of Unitarians, who, you say, p. 19, "always declare that Scripture with 
one voice disowns the doetrine of the Trinity, and that of all the fictions of theo- 
logians, the doctrine of three persons in one God has perhaps the least counte- 
nance from the Bible!" 

In this connexion you have seen fit to entertain the puhlick with a brief his- 
tory of your own mind in relation to the Trinity; in which we are presented 
x\ ilh an instance, similar to too many others, of a struggling and gradual decline 
from the principles of an orthodox education: principles to whose influence Dr. 
Priestly very frankly ascribes the habits of seriousness and devotion which re- 
mained with him, even after he had adopted sentiments confessedly less condu- 
cive to such habits. Did I think it proper thus to obtrude personal history, I 
could give you a very different account. I could tell you of one, who well remem- 
bers the day of enchanting temptation, — when his feet stood on slippery places, — 
when he felt himself strongly impelled to follow the ignes fatui of unitarian illusion; 
and who devoutly hopes never to forget the gracious hand which arrested his 
vourse, guided him back, and as he humbly trusts, fixed his feet on "a stone, a 
tried stone, a sure foundation?'' But rather would I take leave to recorameud 
ft your very serious perusal a tittle book entitled The Force of Truth. 
5 



who have manifested towards us exceeding riches of grace 
and mercy, and to whom we owe supreme and everlasting 
love, and gratitude, and homage. Though we cannot by 
searching find them out unto perfection; yet we can thank- 
fully receive the testimony which they have condescended to 
give us respecting themselves and one another, and humbly 
adore the ineffable and incomprehensible glory which they 
have opened to our view. In the most Holy Three in One, 
we see what can never be seen in a single Divine Person:— 
we see a society, infinitely perfect and blesied. — When we turn 
our thoughts from the Trinity to one Divine Person, inhabit- 
ing eternity in solitary existence, we find it impossible to con- 
ceive how he can be happy. We can form no conception of 
happiness without love, nor of perfect happiness where love 
has not an adequate object. But the most exalted creatures 
are infinitely below the Deity; the whole created universe is 
as nothing in comparison with him. If then he existed in 
one solitary person, where could he find an adequate object 
of infinite love, and how could he be infinitely happy? — When 
we contemplate the Trinity, a far different view is presented 
to our minds. God is iove. The three adorable Persons, 
unlimited in all perfections and excellencies, inhabit eternity 
together; dwell everlastingly in each other, in mutual, perfect, 
immeasurable love. Thus infinitely happy themselves, they 
unitedly delight in communicating happiness to their crea- 
tures. Their own society of boundless love and boundless 
happiness, is the archetype and centre of that holy, and bless- 
ed, and numberless fellowship of angels and of the redeemed 
from among men, who are to be "gathered together in one," 
around the throne of everlasting glory, with immortal joys, 
and unceasing praises. — Call this, Sir, mystery, mysticism, 
or what you please;— it is a theme on which my mind delights 
to dwell; and which I cannot exchange for the solitary Deity, 
and the philosophical heaven of Unitarians. 

V. In pp. 13, 14, and 19, of your Remarks, I find the fol- 
lowing passages. "With respect to the atonement, the 
great body of liberal christians seem to me to accord precisely 



35 

with the author of "Bible News," or rather both agree very 
much with the profound Butler. Both agree that Jesus 
Christ, by his sufferings and intercession, obtains forgiveness 
for sinful men, or that on account, or in consequence of what 
Christ has done and suffered, the punishment of sin is avert- 
«d from the penitent, and blessings forfeited by sin are be- 
stowed. On the question, which is often asked, now the 
death of Christ has this blessed influence, they generally 
think that the scriptures have given us little light, and that 
it is the part of wisdom to accept the kind appointment of 
God, without constructing theories for which the materials 
must be chiefly borrowed from our own imagination." — "It is 
indeed very true that Unitarians say nothing about infinite 
atonement, and they shudder when they hear, what Dr. 
Worcester seems to assert, that the ever blessed God suffer- 
ed and died on the cross. They reject these representations, 
because they find not one passage in scripture which directly 
asserts them or gives them support. Not one word do we 
hear from Christ or his apostles of an infinite atonement. In 
not one solitary text is the efficacy of Christ's death in obtain- 
ing forgiveness, ascribed to his being the Supreme God. Ail 
this is theology of man's making, and strongly marked with 
the hand of its author." — Upon these passages I have to 
remark: 

1. If there is presented to the mind of man a subject which, 
more than any other, should repress the spirit of haughty 
disdain and fastidious cavil, it is that of the atonement. If 
ever man should feel and show profound humility, tenderness, 
and reverence, it is when he approaches the cross of Him, 
who, though he thought it not robbery to be equal with God, 
yet humbled himself, and became obedient unto death.— 
However much of a spirit opposite to the meekness and low- 
liness of Christ might be deemed suitable, to give effect to 
personal invective and popular harangue; but little of it 
surely was necessary, in making a mere statement of your 
sentiments on the most affecting and awful of all subjects. 

2. You are not, I presume, entirely unacquainted witli the 
history or the writings of the primitive age of the christian 



36 

church. If not, you doubtless know that, in that age, both 
Pagans and Jews reproached the christians with worshipping 
a crucified God; and that the christians did not shrink from 
the reproach, nor think it incumbent on them to make tire 
offence of the cross to cease. "Permit me," said St. Ignatius, 
when on his way to the scene of his martyrdom, "Permit me 
to imitate the passion, (the sufferings.) of mtj God." — "Con- 
sider the times; and expect Him who is above all time, eternal* 
invisible, though for our sakes made visible; impalpable, and 
impassible, yet for us subjected to sufferings; enduring all man- 
ner ofwatjsfor our salvation," — At this you "shudder." Yet 
I suppose the blessed martyr, who had been conversant with 
the apostles, and by them ordained a bishop, had some right 
understanding of the doctrine of Christ crucified. You 
"shudder" too at the words of Paul, in their plain and genu- 
ine sense. "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not 
robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no repu- 
tation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was 
made in the likeness of man, and being found in fashion as a 
man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death 
even the death of the cross." For in these very words, I 
summed up my statement, to which you refer when you spsak 
of your shuddering; and more than what is expressed in 
them 1 have no where expressed on this topick. And yet I 
must believe that Paul as well understood the doctrine of 
Christ crucified, as any Unitarian of this enlightened age. 
This same apostle, in his pathetick address to the elders of 
Ephesus, according to our common reading, said, «>Feed tho 
church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood."* 
The apostle John also, according to our common reading, 
says, "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid 
down his life for us."f If by various readings you might be 
justified in doubting the genuineness of the common reading 
in these passages; yet I must be allowed to deny that you 
arc warranted in the bold assurance, with which you as- 
sert that the scriptures give no "support to these representa- 

* Acts xx, 29. t l Jo* 11 * "'»» 1% 



lions." On the contrary, I contend that the scriptures do 
represent and affirm, that the same Jesus Christ, who is God 
as well as man, suffered and died on the cross. 

The phrase "the ever blessed God suffered and died on the 
cross," is not mine. I said that we "hold Jesus Christ to bo 
God and man united in one person, and that this one complex 
person suffered and died." Do you perceive no difference, 
Sir, between these two statements? If not, I beg you to con- 
sider the subject until you understand it, before you again 
undertake to state what I "seem to assert." There is the 
same sort of fallacy in this representation of yours, as in that 
which makes us say, that "Jesus Christ is the only living, the 
only true God."* We do not say nor hold, that Jesus Christ 
is the only living and time God, separate from the Father and 
the Holy Spirit. So neither do we say, that the ever blessed 
God, separately from man, suffered and died; but we do say 
that Jesus Christ, as God and man in one person, did suffer 
and die. This we believe the scriptures most fully teach, 
and at this wo verily think no christian ought to shudder. 
>Ve know however that this fundamental doctrine, this corner 
stone, has always heen to some a stumbling block, and to 
others foolishness. 

You seem to have a very particular antipathy to "an 
infinite atonement." This phrase again is not mine; nor 
do I know why you should introduce it in the manner 

* Of the same sort of fallacy you avail yourself habitually. A very striking in- 
stance of it occurs in your note, p. 46, where you take upon you to say, that "Uni- 
tarianism, besides being directly affirmed in particular passages, runs through the 
v hole scriptures, appears on the whole current of sentiment and language in the; 
Old and the New Testament." This imposing assertion could have been made 
only under cover of an ambiguity. You would not venture to assert, in unequivocal 
terms, that in a single "passage" of scripture it is "directly afiirmed" that there is 
but one person in the Godhead, nor that this doctrine "runs through the whole 
scriptures," &c. But the scriptures do teach, directly in particular passages, a<nd 
implicitly throughout, that there is but one God; and to this doctrine you here ap- 
ply the ambiguous term Unitarianism, as if Trinitarians held to more Gods than, 
one. This, Sir, is practising, as an honest man should be very cautious of doing. 
In opposition to another assertion of yours in this same connexion, I should feet 
perfectly safe in affirming, that the doctrine of the Trinity, instead of depending 
for support "on a small number of disconnected texts," "runs through the whole 
fpriptutcs," and pervades the entire system of revealed truth. 



36 

you have done, unless it were to make aYi erroneous im- 
pression, as if the question between us were, whether the 
atonement was infinite. The question, however, is, wheth- 
er the death of Christ was truly and properly an atone- 
ment, — an expiatory sacrifice for sin. Let this question first 
be determined, and then if you please attend to the other. 
Your practice of perpetually confounding things, and varying 
and misstating the points in debate, whatever other purpose 
it may serve, certainly can serve no good purpose. 

In reply to your peremptory assertion, that "in not one 
solitary text is the efficacy of Christ's atonement ascribed to 
his being the supreme God," I affirm that the scriptures 
certainly do, not in one solitary text only, but in many pas- 
sages, and with one voice, ascribe the efficacy of Christ's 
atonement, to his divine dignity. Not to cite particular pas- 
sages, it may suffice to refer to the epistle to the Hebrews 
entire; in which the apostle sets out with asserting and 
proving tJie divine dignity of the Son; and then upon this firm 
basis, founds the doctrine of his high priesthood, and his 
propitiatory sacrifice. In the course of his argument he uses 
such expressions as these: "Such an High Priest became 
us."* "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his 
own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having ob- 
tained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls 
and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the un- 
clean, sanctificth to the purifying of the flesh; how much 
more shall the blood of Jesus Christ, who, through the eternal 
Spirit, offered himself without.spot to God, purge your conscience 
from dead works to serve the living GodP"-\ In vain, Sir, do 
you attempt, by bold and random assertions, to escape from 
(lie solemn inference, so odious to many, that we are sinners, 

* lfeb. vii, 26. 

t Heb. ix, 12, 13, 14. "When the Son of God, who is one with the Father, 
Jakes flesh and blood upon him, and becomes God manifest in the flesh, here God 
and man are united inone complex person, and hereby we enjoy an all-sufficient 
Saviour, a Reconciler beyond all exception, a sacrifice of atonement, equal to the 
guilt of our transgressions. And so far as I can judge, it is on this account one 
apostle says, "God redeemed the churi it with his own blood;" and another asserts, 



39 

naturally in a ruined, condemned state; and that in order to 
our salvation, there was need of such a propitiation for our 
sins, as the scriptures set forth in Jesus Christ crucified. 

3. "With respect to Christ's atonement, you say, the 
great body of liberal christians seem to me to accord precisely 
with the author of "Bible News," or rather both agree very 
much with the profound Butler." Most devoutly, Sir, do I 
Wish that we had more evidence of this, than that it "seems" 
so to you. Most gratefully should I rejoice to know, that 
you, and others of your liberal brethren, really agree, on this 
momentous point, with Bishop Butler. But why refer to this 
distinguished writer? Did you mean to make the impression 
that you* orthodox opponents here materially differ from him? 
The truth is, that my statement of the doctrine of atonement, 
is so exactly in agreement with his, that my readers might be 
ready to suppose, that when making it, I had his book open 
before me. I wish you had seen fit to quote him at large, 
and recommend his sentiments to your readers. As you have 
not done it, I will take leave to make a quotation. 

After a very lucid and forcible argument to shew the rea- 
sonableness and credibility of the doctrine, Bishop Butler 
proceeds to say,* "The particular manner in which Christ 
interposed in the redemption of the world, or his office as 
mediator in the largest sense between God and man, is thus 
represented to us in the scripture. ( IIe is the light of the world; 9 
the revealer of the will of God in the most eminent sense. 

"Hereby perceive we the love of God, that he laid down his life for us." And I do 
not yet see sufficient reason why that expression of St. Paul may not be referred 
to in the same sense, "How much more shall the blood of Jesus Christ, who through 
the eternal spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience," 
Jec. If the eternal Spirit signify the divine nature or Godhead, which dwelt bodily 
in the man Jesus, then the dignity of his complete person is made the foundation of 
the value of his blood. This dignity of the Godhead which was personally united 
to the man who suffered, spreads an infinite value over his sufferings and merit: 
and this renders them equal to that infinite guilt and demerit of sin, which would 
have extended the punishment of man to everlasting age*. The infinite dignity 
of the person suffering answers to the infinite dignity of the person offended, and 
so takes away the necessity of the everlasting dura\ioa of it." Watts's Sermon* 
on Atonement. 

* Analogy, Part II. Chap. V Sec. « 



40 

He is a propitiatory sacrifice;* the Lamb of GO(/*f 
and as he voluntarily offered himself up, he is styled our 
high priest. + And, which seems of peculiar weight, he is de- 
scribed before hand in the Old Testament* under the same 
character of a priest, and an expiatory victim.^ And 
whereas it is objected, that all this is merely by way of allu- 
sion to the sacrifices of the Mosaick law, the apostle on the 
coutrary affirms, that the law was a shadow of good things 
to come, and not the very image of the things;^ and that the 
priests that offer gifts according to the law — serve unto the ex- 
ample and shadow of heavenly things* as Moses was admon- 
ished of Goa, when he was about to make the tabernacle. For 
see, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern 
shewed to thee in the mount;** i. e. the Levitical priesthood was 
a shadow of the priesthood of Christ, in like manner as the 
tabernacle made by Moses, was according to that shewed 
him in the mount. The priesthood of Christ and the taber- 
nacle in the mount, were the originals; of the former of which 
the Levitical priesthood was a type, and of the latter the tab- 
ernacle made by Moses was a copy. The doctrine of this 
epistle then plainly is, that the legal saenfices were allusions to 
the great and final atonement; to be made by the blood op 
Christ* and not that this was an allusion to those. Nor 
can any thing be more express or determinate than the follow- 
ing passage. It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats 
should take away sin. Wherefore, when he cometh into tlie 
world he saith, sacrifice and offering, i. e. of bulls, and of 
goats, thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me. — Lo 
I come to do thy will, God. — By which will we are sanctified* 
through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for «W."f j 
And to add one passage more of the like kind. Christ was 
®nce offered to bear the sins of many, and unto them that look for 
him shall he appear the second time, without sin, i. e. without 

* Rom. iii, 25, and v, 11. 1 Cor. v, 7. Eph. v, 2. 1 John U, 2. 
t John i, 29, 36, and throughout the book of Revelation. 
Throughout the epistle to the Hebrews. 

§ Isa. liii. Dan. ix, 24. Ps. ex, 4. % Heb. x, 1. 

** Heb. viii, 4, 5 ft Heb. x, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 



4i 

SEARING SIN AS HE DID AT HIS FIRST COMING, BY BEING 

an offering for it, without having our iniquities agai;i 
laid upon him, without being any more A sin offering; unto 
them that look for him shall he appear tJw second time, without 
sin unto salvation.* Nor do the inspired writers at all con- 
fine themselves to this manner of speaking concerning the 
.satisfaction of Christ, hut declare an efficacy in what he 
did and suffered, additional to, and beyond, mere instruction* 
example and government, in great variety of expression."— 
The Bishop in this connexion proceeds to quote nearly 
thirty texts many of which are the very same which are 
quoted in my Second Letter, to shew that we have redemp- 
tion, the forgiveness of sins through the death of Christ, aj 
an expiatory sacrifice. 

I repeat it, Sir,— most gratefully should I rejoice to know, 
that you and your liberal brethren agree with Dr. Butler in 
these orthodox views of the atonement. But, 

4. It is to be lamented, that you have thought it necessary 
to take especial care, not to leave the matter in a general, un- 
qualified reference to Butler; but proceed to qualify, until 
you fritter the doctrine to atoms, and scatter if in the win :\. 
♦'Both agree, you say, that Jesus Christ, by his sufferings 
and intercession, obtains forgiveness for sinful men, or that 
on account, or in consequence of what Christ has done 
and suffered, the punishment of sin is averted from the feni- 
teut, and blessings, forfeited by sin, are bestowed/' Such are 
the ambiguous words which you delight to use. Undoubt- 
edly, Sir, when penning this studied sentence, you were per- 
fectly aware, that Unitarians of the lowest class, even such 
as make Jesus Christ a mere fallible and peccable man, and 
utterly discard, and irreverently ridicule the doctrine of 
atonement, would make no difficulty of giving to this repre- 
sentation their general assent. They would readily admit, 
that, "in consequence of what Christ has done and suffered, 
the punishment of sin is averted from the penitent, and bless- 
ings, forfeited by sin, are bestowed;" as, with equal readi- 
ness, and in the same sense, they would admit, that the same 
benefits are conferred, in consequence of what Paul and other 

* Heb. xxv iii. 



41 

good men have done and suffered — But is this, Sir, "agree- 
ing very much with the profound Butler!"* I deeply regret 
to say, that I can see in this statement very little evidence of 
a true helief in the atonement. At any rate, whether you 
believe in the atonement in any proper sense, or not, it is la- 
mentably manifest, not from this passage only, but from uni- 
form representations throughout your three pamphlets, that 
you consider the atonement as comparatively unimportant, 
and hold that men who utterly reject it, may nevertheless be 
very good christians. 

There is a wide difference between acknowledging Jesus 
Christ, merely as a prophet and a preacher of righteousness, 
who laboured, interceded, and died, to impart, to confirm, 
and to impress divine instruction, that men might be induced 
to repent and trust in a merciful God for pardon and eternal 

* It is agreeing, I acknowledge, very much with the popular Price, whom possibly 
you had in your eye as your model, and who in a Sermon, lately republished with 
the high imprimatur of the liberal party, says, "Give me but the fact, that Christ 
is the resurrection, and the life, and explain it as you will. Give me but 
this single truth, that eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our 
Lord and Saviour, and I shall be perfectly easy with respect to the contrary 
opinions which are entertained about the dignity of Christ; about his nature, per- 
son, and offices; and the manner in -which he saves us. Call him, if you please, 
simply a man, endowed with extraordinary powers; or call him a superaugelick 
being, who appeared in human nature for the purpose of accomplishing our sal- 
vation; or say, (if you can admit a though* so shockingly absurd!) that it was the 
second of three co-equal persons in the Godhead, forming one person with a hu- 
man soul, that came down from heaven and suffered and died on the cross: Say, 
that he saves us merely by being a messenger from God to reveal to us eternal life, 
and to confer it upon us; or say on the contrary, that be not only reveals to us 
eternal lite, and confers it upon us, but has obtained it for us by offering himself 
a propitiatory sacrifice on the cross, and making satisfaction to the justice of the 
Deity for our sins: 1 shall think such differences of little moment, provided the 
fact is allowed, that Christ did rise from the dead, and will raise us from the dead; 
and that all righteous penitents will, through Go<f s grace in him, be accepted and 
made happy for ever. 5 * — So then it is "of very little moment," whether we wor- 
ship Christ as God, or regard him only as a mere man; — whether we recognise his 
death as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, or only as one instance among many 
of mere martyrdom; — whether with bleeding hearts Ave come to his cross, hum- 
bly relying on the merits of his'death for pardon and life, or trust in ourselves that 
we are "righteous penitents!" By no dread of reproach can I be deterred from 
declaring, that neither the name nor the popularity of Dr. Price, nor of any other 
man or society of meu, ought to protect sentiments like these from the decided 
reprobation of every person who bows at the name of Jesos, or hopes for salvatiws 
-.hrongh faith in his blood: 



43 

life; ami believing on him, not only as a prophet and a 
preacher, but also as our great High Priest, by whose blood 
we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins, and our 
Surety, who is the end of the law for righteousness unto every 
one that believeth on him. This is a main, a radical point 
between the orthodox and Unitarians. You acknowledge 
Jesus as a prophet and a preacher of righteousness, and make 
such an acknowledgement of him essential to the christian 
name; but Ms priesthood and suretyship, with his propitiatory 
sacrifice, and vicarious righteousness, you either deny, or 
hold to be non-essential and of little importance. A mere 
man, for aught that appears, might have been authorized and 
inspired to do all which Jesus did in the way of revealing, 
preaching, and attesting the mind and will of God, for the 
instruction of mankind; indeed Paul did more in this way 
than Jesus in person did; and so long as you hold this to be 
all which was essential to our salvation, it is not strange that 
you do not see it necessary that the Saviour should be God 
as well as man. 

But, Sir, do not the scriptures dwell infinitely more on 
Christ's office as priest, than on his office as prophet? Was 
it not to him, chiefly as the great High Priest, who by the 
one offering of himself was to obtain eternal redemption for 
us, that the Mosaick economy entire, and all the instituted 
sacrifices, from the beginning of the world to his incarnation, 
looked as their antitype? Did not his harbinger John pub- 
llckly announce him as the Lamb of Gad that iaketh away 
the sin of the world? Was not salvation by his death, as a 
propitiation for sin, the burden of apostolick preaching? Was 
it not the express design of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
at large, to establish his priesthood, and the necessity and 
efficacy of his sacrifice? And do not the scriptures most 
abundantly represent, that the faith which it requires of us, 
is not merely an assent to his divine instructions, but also 
and especially a fiducial trust in his atoning blood? 

By what authority then can any one either deny the atone- 
ment, or represent it as doubtful, or of little importance. When 
the scriptures so constantly insist on the propitiatory sacri- 
!5oe of our great High Priest, and so directly found upon it 



44 

the doctrine of justification unto life, and all the immortal 
hopes of man; who can be authorized to set this foundation 
aside, or represent it as not essential to the christian faith? 
When, from the day the Saviour was promised, it was only 
by sacrifice, typical of the great and final atonement to he 
made by him, that fallen men were allowed to draw near to 
God, and without shedding of blood there was no remission; 
are we now, since the Saviour has come, and the atonement 
has been made, — are we now to be taught that the fact of 
the sacrifice is doubtful, that the truth of it is unimportant, 
that faith in it is unnecessary, and that, if we please, we may 
utterly reject it, and boldly, and without guilt or danger, ap- 
proach the holy God, trusting in ourselves as "righteous 
penitents!" 

If it is not necessary to believe in Christ's priestly office 
and work, why is it necessary to believe in him as a prophet 
and messenger of God? If we may innocently and safely deny 
his death to be jjropitiatory, why may we not, with equal 
innocence and safety, deny his instructions to be divine? 
Many who have denied revelation altogether, have neverthe- 
less acknowledged the pre-eminent excellence of the character, 
and of the instructions of Jesus; and have been men of dis- 
tinguished talents, and of exemplary morality. Why is not 
this sufficient? If they acknowledge the morality of the gos- 
pel to be excellent, and hold the necessity of repentance of all 
sin, and of a life conformed to the principles of righteousness 
and virtue; why is it necessary for them to believe that Jesus 
and the apostles were divinely commissioned and inspired? — 
Is not the difference between deists of this description and 
unitarians vastly less, than between unitarians and orthodox 
christians? Such deists agree with unitarians in acknowledg- 
ing Jesus as the most excellent of all teachers; both profess 
to reverence his instructions; both hold the necessity of re- 
pentance and a good life; both believe that "righteous peni- 
tents" will be saved from "the punishment of sin," and re- 
ceive from a God of infinite goodness and mercy the reward 
of everlasting life; and both agree in rejecting the propitiato- 
ry sacrifice of Christ, and in refusing to trust for pardon and 
salvation in tire vicarious merits of his death. — They are 



43 

-near to each other, — next door neighbours.— But between 
them hoth and orthodox christians the distance is great. 

If in any case, a surety, or a substitute is proposed on one 
part, and not accepted or consented to on the other, the pro- 
posal in that case fails, and the debtor, or the offender is still 
answerable solely in his own person. God proposes Christ 
crucified to us as our surety, our substitute, our propitiation: 
it is by faith in him, as tints set forth, that we consent to the 
proposal. If we acknowledge Christ as our surety, our sub- 
stitute, the propitiation for our sins, and believe on him as 
such, we consent to God's gracious proposal, and there is a 
settled, a fixed agreement or covenant between him and us.; 
an agreement or covenant respecting the cancelling of our 
sins, our renewal after the image of God, and the entire con- 
cern of our eternal salvation. If we do not thus acknowl- 
edge and believe on Christ, but deny and reject his propitia- 
tory sacrifice; the momentous proposal fails as to us: we 
are without a surety, without a ransom for our souls, with- 
out the benefit of a propitiation; and must stand at the bar of 
the righteous Judge solely upon our own personal footing! — 
«lf I forsake the gospel of Christ and his atonement for sin, 
whither shall my guilty conscience fly to find a better relief.—* 
Nature shews me no way to recompense the justice of God 
for my innumerable sins. Nature shews me nothing which 
God will accept in the room of my own perfect obedience, or 
in the room of my everlasting punishment. If I leave thee, 
O Jesus, whither shall I go? Thy sufferings are the spring 
of my hope of pardon, and my eternal life depends on thy 
painful and shameful death. — may I ever maintain a con- 
stant exercise of faith on the Son of God as my great High 
Priest] May I keep up a lively and delightful sense oHhe all- 
sufficiency of his atonement upon my spirit, that this, which tl 
the glory of my religion, may also be the daily life of my soul. 
— Let me call to mind the solemn seasons of transaction be- 
tween Christ and my soul. Have I not resigned myself to him 
as an all-sufficient Saviour, to deliver me botii from the guilt 
and the power of every sin? Have I not trusted in the blood of 
his atonement, andfclt the quickening power of his Spirit as the 
fruit of his blood? Has he not raised me lo a- new life?— 3 



4t> 

would rise to join with the blessed acclamations, the holy 
songs of the saints on high, while they behold their exalted 
Saviour. How sweet their songs! How loud their acclama- 
tions! This is the man, the God-man who died for me! 
This is the glorious Person; the Lamb of God, who wash- 
ed me from my sixs \N his own blood!"* — Such, Sir, are 
the sentiments, inspired by faith in the atoning blood of 
of Christ* AVhere do we find sentiments like these uttered 
by a Unitarian. We hear much of their "talents" and their 
••learning," their "purity" and their "virtues;" but little — 
but nothing — of their glorying only in the cross of our Lord Je- 
sus Christ. — A true believer in Christ's atonement never will, 
never can consider it, or represent it as doubtful or unim- 
portant; never will or can admit any other foundation of 
hope for fallen mankind. 

VI. After stating what "seem" to you to be the prevalent 
sentiments of the liberal party, you are pleased to say, p. 
14, "My motive for making the preceding statement, is no 
other than a desire to contribute whatever may be in my 
power to the peace of our churches. I have hoped that by 
this representation, some portion of the charity which has 
been expressed towards Dr. dark, and the author of "Bible 
News," may be extended towards their Unitarian brethren; 
and that thus the ecclesiastical division which is threatened 
may be averted." This may be considered as the basis of 
tiie fervid rhapsodies and inflammatory harangues, with which 
jour subsequent pages are filled; and in which to a degree 
seldom surpassed, you have shewn yourself violent for charity, 
and "fierce for moderation;" and, with little restraint, have 
appealed to passions and prejudices to which a wise man, en- 
gaged in a good cause, would scarcely, in the most desperate 
extremity, refer for a decision, or apply for aid. In the course 
therefore of my remarks, in relation to this passage, I shall 
have occasion to take notice of the most important of the 
many exceptionable things, which in your varied strains of 
declamation you have so copiously poured forth. 

* Watts. — Sermon on Atonement. 



47 

Charity ought undoubtedly to be extended to every class of 
Unitarians, and to all men. But what is charity? It is love — 
holy love: — such as the everlasting Father manifested, when 
he gave his Son for the redemption of our ruined race; such 
as Jesus Christ displayed, when he "bore our sins in his own 
body on the tree," and "tasted death for every man;" such 
as the apostles exhibited, when they made a voluntary sacri- 
fice of every earthly consideration, for the sake of bringing 
men to the knowledge and acknowledgement of the truth, 
that they might be saved. But with all his infinite love, 
God has never regarded the errours of mankind as either inno- 
cent or safe; but with awful majesty has borne his decided 
testimony against them, and declared that the children of 
men have all gone aside, that destruction and misery are in 
their ways, and that he will bring to nought the wisdom of 
this world. Jesus Christ also, though possessed of the same 
infinite love, has solemnly testified, that "men love darkness 
rather than light, because their deeds are evil;" that "the 
world hates both him and his Father;" — hates also his true 
followers, "because they are not of the world, but he has 
chosen them out of the world."* And he exercised perfect 
charity when he said, "Wo unto you, scribes, and pharisecs, 
hypocrite's! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against 
men; for ye neither go in yourselves, nor suffer them that are 
entering to go in. — Ye build the tombs of the prophets and 
garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had 
been in days of our fathers we would not have been partakers? 
with them in the blood of the prophets."! — "Ye are of the 
world — If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your 
sins.":}: — It was in the spirit of pure and fervent charity, that 
the devoted apostle of the Gentiles so solemnly averred: "I 
say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing 
me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness 
and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that 
myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kins- 
men according to the flesh, who arc Israelites/' — "For I bear 
them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according 

* John Hi, 19; vli, 7; xv, 17, 18,24. j M *tt. «&, 13—33. \ John viii,24 



43 

to knowledge. For they befog ignorant of God's rightefcas- 
ness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, 
have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of 
God."* In the same charitable spirit, he said to the Gala- 
tians, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that 
called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel; 
which is not another: but there are some that trouble you 
and would pervert the gospel of Christ.'' — "0 foolish Gala- 
tians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not okey the 
truth." "1 would that they were even cut off that trouble 
you."f And in the same holy love, he declared to the Corin- 
thians, "We preach Christ crucified, unto tlie Jews a stumb- 
ling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness;"i — exhorted tlte 
Romans, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which 
cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which 
ye have learned, and avoid them;"§ — warned the Colossians. 
••Beware Jest any man spoil you through philosophy ami vain 
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the 
world, and not after Christ;"^} — and chprged Timothy, "to 
war a good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience, 
which some having put away, concerning ta'th have made 
shipwreck. Of whom," he says, "art; Hymenens and Alex- 
ander, whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may 
learn not to blaspheme." ##-— The disciple also, whom Jesus 
loved was in the exercise of the most enlarged and elevated 
charity, when he wrote as follows: "Little children, there are 
many antichrists: — but ye have an unction from the Holy 
One, and ye know all tilings. I have not written unto you, 
because ye know not the truth; but because ye know it, and 
that no lie, [no false doctrine] is of the truth." — "Beloved, 
believe not every spirit; but try the spirits whether they are 
of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the 
world. — -They are- of the world; therefore speak they ot the 
v orld, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that 
knoweth God heareth us. Hereby know we the spirit of 
truth and the spirit of errour."— "Whosoever transgressetii 
and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He 

* Rom. ix, t — i; x, 2, 3. f Gal. i, G— 9; iii, If v, 12. * 1 Cor.i, 23. 

§ Rom. xvi, IT. % Col. ii, 8. ** I Tim. i, 18—20. 



49 

that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, lie hath both the Fath- 
er and the Son. If there come any unto yon, and bring not 
this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid 
him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed, is par- 
taker of his evil deeds,"* 

This, Sir, is genuine — divine charity: — charity, which can 
discern between truth and errour; which rejoiceth in the 
truth, and in the light, the happiness, and the holy fellowship 
of those who embrace and obey it; and, while it rejects and 
condemns errour, deeply deplores the darkness, the danger, 
and the delusive communion of those who yield to its fascina- 
tions, and ardently desires and seeks their conviction and 
salvation:— which adores the Lord Jesus with a reverence too 
holy to trifle with his sacred institutions, and regards all men 
with an affection too benevolent to cheer them in the ways of 
destruction. Yes, genuine charity rejoiceth in the truth. It 
is essentially love of truth; and it reeards God and Christ, 
saints and sinners, all beings and things, according to truth. 
It delights in truth as the foundation of all pure religion, 
genuine virtue, and substantial happiness;— as of the first im- 
portance to the essential and everlasting interests of mankind. 
In all ages of the world, therefore, it has been the grand ef- 
fort of charity to convince men of their errours, to rescue 
them from their delusions, and to bring them to the knowledge 
of the truth. In this arduous work, it has endured the con- 
tradictions and reproaches, the unappeasable resentments 
and varied persecutions, of the erring, and proud, and ad- 
verse world. The palms and crowns, which distinguish the 
hosts of holy martyrs before the throne of God and the Lamb, 
were all won by the labours, and sufferings, and conflicts of 
charity, in maintaining, defending, and propagating the truth 
upon the earth. 

How different from this, in its nature and in its labours, is 
the misnamed charity for which you contend; — a charity 
Which is fondly indulgent to all errour, and inimical only to 
the truth; which consists in thinking or admitting that men 
may be good and acceptable in the sight of God, though they 
utterly reject the gospel as a "cunningly devised fable," and 

* 1 Jefcni ii, 18— C7; u\, 1—6; C John 9—!!. 



88 

might to be held in christian fellowship, if they only atftfioffll-* 
edge that "Jesus is the -Christ/' though they disbelieve, and 
contemn every essential doctrine of Christianity, This spu- 
rious charity, it ought to be distinctly noted, may be possess- 
ed, in its utmost extent, by the most unholy men; ay infidels 
of every species of disbelief?— Jby libertines of every degree of 
licentiousness. It is an indisputable fact, that the open scof- 
fers nt religion, the "lovers of their own selves," the "proud,'* 
the "blasphemers," the ''covetous," the "fierce," the ««despis- 
ers of them that are good," can shew as much of this sort of 
charity, and clamour as loudly for it, as the very best of your 
liberal christians. Listen to the pagan writers with whom 
the primitive christians had to contend, — to the free-thinkers, 
deists, and atheists of modern times, — to the "unruly and 
vain-talkers," the "murmurers and complainers/' who "speak 
evil of things that they understand not," and utter "great 
swelling words of vanity:"— -all these, while they strenuously 
oppose all the efforts of holy love, both divine and human, to 
reclaim men from **the errour of their ways unto the wisdom 
of the just;" yet with one voice cry out for charity and liber- 
ality, denounce christians as so uncharitable and illiberal as to 
deserve the execration of the world, and charge upon them all 
the guilt of all the divisions, contentions, and persecutions, of 
which truth and religion have been innocently the occasion. 
"Are we blind also?" was indignantly said by some of the 
masters of Israel to the great Teacher from heaven, who 
would ha vc "guided their feet into the way of peace." To 
the inspired apostles, to tl»e successive ministers of Christ, 
and to others who have been valiant for the truth upon the 
earth, similar language has been used, and with a similar 
spirit, in every succeeding age. The pride of man revolts at 
the imputation of errour, and the passions take fire to revenge 
the alleged insult, To compose and prevent the strife, "the 
wisdom of this world" has devised and proposed, that all re- 
ligious truth should be held as matter of mere opinion, — that 
all religious opinions should be entitled to equal favour, — that 
the acknowledgement of this title should be called charity, — 
and that this charity should be regarded and inculcated as the 
essence and sum of religion, Were this compact universally 



51 

adopted and carried into effect, the world, it is imagined, 
would be settled in millennial tranquillity, and men would be 
Ml, without molestation, to follow their own opinions, to 
worship their own gods, and to pass on to their final state in 
their own chosen ways. All therefore who dissent, are to he 
regarded as common enemies,\incharitable, illiberal, bigotted 
fanaticks, — men who would turn the world upside down, and 
against whom charity calls for a combination of all classes 
and persuasions. "The system," you say, "of excluding from 
christian fellowship men of upright lives, on account of tlieir 
opinions? — necessarily generates perpetual discord m the 
church. — Tims the wars of christians will be perpetual. 
ISTever will there be peace, until christians agree to differ, and 
agree to look for the evidences of christian character in th# 
temper and the life:" that is, without regard to faith or disbe- 
lief. Pages 31 — S3. 

Such, Sir, is the charity for w^hich you contend, widen you 
represent as incomparably more excellent than faith, and to 
which you make no ordinary pretensions. But, high as your 
pretensions are, you are eclipsed in this particular, hy deists 
and atheists, by scoffers and libertines. 

You seem to be aware, that the apostles were not entirely 
in this system. You desire, however, that we may "never 
forget that the apostles were inspired men, capable of mark- 
ing out with unerring certainty those who substituted another 
gospel for the true," p. 27. In this desire I cordially unite 
with you. It ought certainly never to he forgotten, tiiat they 
were inspired men,* and as little should it he forgotten, that 
by excluding from fellowship "those, who substituted another 
gospel for the true," they made it as certain as the high au- 
thority of inspiration could make it, that those who do reject 
the true gospel and embrace another, however their tempers 
and lives may appear, are not entitled to the privileges of 
christian communion. This point then is decisively settled. 

But you will say, who can now pretend to inspiration, and 
vho, without this gift, has a right to decide what the true 
gospel is, and what is another. "Show us their [the apostles] 
successors and we will cheerfully obey them." Much is to he 
found to this effect in all your pamphlets: importing that no 



33 

uninspired man can know, nor has a right to decide, what the 
true doctrines of the gospel are, or what are false doctrines; 
and charging with an arrogant assumption of "infallibility," 
those, who profess any assurance or certainty, that, in their 
articles of faith, or their "opinions," they are light. This 
indeed seems to be the very basis of your system. 

Is it however so, that no uninspired man can know, nor has 
a right to judge what the true gospel of Christ is? For what 
purpose then were the apostles and the prophets before them 
inspired? Was it merely for their own benefit? or at most for 
theirs, and the benefit of others of their own times? For what 
purpose then were the revelations which were communicated 
to them, committed to writing* and transmitted with so much 
care to succeeding generations? Of what use are the scrip- 
tures, if no uninspired man can know with any certainty what 
are the doctrines contained in them? — The celebrated Hume 
has asserted, that miracles could he of no use, as attestations 
to a divine revelation, excepting to such as were eye-wit- 
nesses of them; because no other persons could have sufficient 
evidence of the facts. But I believe that even that gigantick 
adversary of the gospel never went so far as your argument 
goes: never undertook to assert that a divine revelation, 
though well attested, could never make any doctrine or trutli 
certain, excepting to inspired men; because no other persons 
could ever know with any certainty what doctrines or truths 
are revealed. Had he lighted upon this discovery, he would 
have found an argument against revelation, incomparably 
more available than any which he has urged; an argument 
which, if correct in its premises, must be decisive in its con- 
clusion: for unquestionably a God of infinite wisdom and 
goodness would never communicate a revelation to the world, 
for the instruction and faith of uninspired men, if none but 
the inspired could understand it, or attain to any certainty 
in regard to its doctrines. Upon this Unitarian principle, 
inspiration, to answer its purpose, must be continued through- 
out all ages; just as Hume contended that miracles must be. 
This point demands very particular attention, for it is the 
very hinge on which the question respecting fellowship turns, 
et it then be again distinctly noted, that you have found 



53 , 

yourself compelled to concede, that the inspired apostles did 
exclude from fellowship those who embraced another gospel, 
or doctrines or opinions subversive of tlie gospel of Christ. 
This establishes the principle decisively, that it would be 
right to separate from such now, could it only be determined 
what the gospel of Christ is, and what another gospel. But 
this, you contend, no uninspired man or body of men has a 
right to determine. The Unitarian system, as set forth by 
Mr. Belsham, is clearly opposite, in every essential point, to 
the orthodox system. Yet no uninspired man has a right to 
determine, which of these two opposite systems is the true 
gospel; no one has a right to pronounce either of them false! 
And, therefore, the believers in either of them have no right 
to separate from the believers in the other! — If it be really so, 
then let us hear no more of the great Protestant principle, that 
the scriptures are a sufficient rule of faith; for instead of being 
a sufficient rule, they are no rule at all. They do not enable 
or warrant us to decide between two systems, fundamentally 
and diametrically opposite, which is true, or whether both of 
them arc false. "What the gospel of Christ is, no uninspired 
man can tell. If any undertake to determine, and to pro- 
nounce an opposite system another gospel, they are to be re- 
garded as illiberal and uncharitable men, "proud and arro- 
gant" pretenders to "infallibility," ignorant "bigots," and 
edious "persecutors." 

The question respecting fellowship or separation certainly 
resolves itself into this point. If the scriptures are a suffi- 
cient rule of faith, if from them uninspired men can know 
what the doctrines of Christ are, or what the true gospel is; 
then they have apostolick, divine authority for withdrawing 
and withholding fellowship from those, who reject the true, 
and embrace another gospel. If the scriptures are not a suffi- 
cient rule of faith; if no uninspired man can know what the 
gospel of Christ is; then the "faith of christians is vain, and 
our preaching also is vain;" and we have yet to wait, in 
gloomy uncertainty, in dismal darkness, until God in his 
sovereign go -dness shall again bless the world, or some por 
tion of it, with the gift of inspiration, 



This cardinal question of the sufficiency of the scriptures 
wight to be considered, as having been long since decisively 
settled. It is one of the principal questions which was ar* 
dently debated, more than two hundred years ago, between 
the Protestants and Papists; and it was little to have been 
expected that, at this time of day, professed Protestants 
would entrench themselves upon the ground, as Unitarians 
actually have done,* from which the Papists have been so 
triumphantly driven* It is however a most striking instance 
of the meeting of opposite extremes. Upon this topick> I can 
hardly do better, than to present the following quotations 
from a great champion of the Protestant cause, whose author- 
ity on some points you would undoubtedly very highly value. 

"I pray tell me," says Chillingworth, "why cannot 
Heresies be sufficiently discovered, condemned, and avoided 
by them which believe scripture to be the rule of faith? If 
scripture be sufficient to inform us what is the Faith, it must 
of necessity also be sufficient to teach us what is Heresy; see- 
ing Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from, or op- 
position to the Faith. That which is straight will plainly 
teach us what is crooked; and one contrary cannot but 
manifest the other. — Though we pretend not to certain 
means of not erring m interpreting all scripture, partic- 
ularly such places as are obscure and ambiguous, yet this, 
methinks, should be no impediment, but that we may have 
certain means of not erring in and about the sense of those 
places which are so plain and clear that they need no inter- 
preters: And in such we say our faith is contained. If you 
iisk me, how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of 
these places? I ask you again, can you be sure that you un- 

* I am fully aware that the orthodox have been violently charged with a derelic- 
tion of this principle, because they make use of creeds; and Unitarians, in oppos- 
ing creeds, have claimed the honour of "contending for the liberty of being Pro- 
testants." Every well informed person however knows, that the Protestants 
held the principle, not to the exclusion of creeds drawn from the scriptures, but 
in opposition to "unwritten tradition" and "papal infallibility." While they held 
the scriptures to be the only and sufficient rule of faith, all the Protestant 
churches had their creeds. — The Unitarian argument, in misapplying the princi- 
ple, is to this effect: The scriptures are sufficiently full and plain as the rule of 
faith for all men; therefore no man, or body of men, has a right to say mUsI doc' 
-trtoes the scriptures teach! 



55 

derstand what I, or any man else says? — God be thanked that 
we have sufficient means to be certain enough of the truth of 
our faith. But the privilege of not being in possibility of 
erring, that we challenge not, because we have as little rea- 
son as you, to do so,* and you have none at all. If you 
ask, seeing we may possibly err, how can we be assured we 
do not? I ask you again, seeing your eye-sight may deceive 
you, how can you be sure you see the sun when you do see it? 
Perhaps you may be in a dream, and perhaps you and all the 
men in the world have been so, when they thought they were 
awake, and then only awake, when they thought they 
dreamt. — A pretty sophism this, — that whosoever possibly 
may err, cannot be certain thai he doth not err. A judge may 
possibly err* in judgment; can he therefore never have as- 
surance, that he hath judged right. A traveller may possi- 
bly mistake his way; must I therefore be doubtful whether I 
am in the right way from my hall to my chamber. 

"Methinks, so subtle a man as you are, should easily ap- 
prehend a wide difference between authority to do a thing, 
and infallibility in doing it, and again, between a conditional 
infallibility and an absolute. The former, the Doctor, [Potter] 
together with the Articles of the Church of England, attribut- 
eth to the church, nay to particular churches, and 1 subscribe 
to his opinion: That is, an authority of determining contro- 
versies of faith, according to plain and evident scripture, and 
universal tradition, and infallibility while they proceed accord- 
ing to this rule. As, if there should arise an heretick that 
should call in question Christ's passion and resurrection, the 
church had authority to decide this controversy, and infallible 
direction how to do it, and to excommunicate this man, if he 
should persist in his errour. 

"The ground of your errour here is, your not distinguish- 
ing between actual certainty and absolute infallibility. Geome 
tricians arc not infallible in their own science; yet they are 
very certain of those things which they see demonstrated: and 
carpenters are not iitfallible, yet certain of the straightness oi 
those things which agree with their rule and square. So though 
the church be not infallibly certain that in all her definitions* 
whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous makers, 



56 

she shall proceed according to her rule; yet being certain of 
the infallibility of her rule, and that in this and that thing she 
doth manifestly proceed according to it; she may be certain 
of the truth of some particular decrees, and yet not be certain 
that she shall never decree but what is true. 

"Protestants, believing scripture to be the word of God, 
may be certain enough of the truth and certainty of it. For 
what if they say the Catholick Church, much more them- 
selves, may err in some unfundamental points, is it therefore 
consequent, they can be certain of none such? What if a wiser 
man than I may mistake some obscure place of Aristotle, may 
I not therefore, without any arrogance or inconsequence con- 
ceive myself certain that I understand him in some plain 
places which carry their sense before them? — We pretend not 
at all to any assurance that we cannot err, but only to a suffi- 
cient certainty that we do not err, but rightly understand those 
things that are plain, whether fundamental or not fundamen- 
tal. — I do heartily acknowledge and believe the articles of 
our faith to be in themselves truths as certain and infallible, 
as the very common principles of geometry or mctaphys- 
icks."* 

These pertinent and forcible reasonings and remarks, 
which were long ago employed against the Papists, are now 
of equal pertinence and force against the Unitarians; and 
they now as well explain and vindicate the principles and views 
of the orthodox, as they then did those of the Protestants. 

But you say further, p. 27. "It is also important to recol- 
lect the character of those men, against whom the apostolick 
anathema was directed. They were men who knew distinctly 
what the apostles taught, and yet opposed it; and who en- 
deavoured to sow division, and to gain followers in the 
i -hurdies which the apostles had planted. These men, re- 
sisting the known instructions of the authorized and inspired 
teachers of the gospel, and discovering a factious, selfish, 
mercenary spirit, were justly excluded as unworthy the 
christian name. But what in common with these men, have 
the christians whom Dr. Worcester and his friends denounce? 

* GhillingworuYs Works, Chap, ii, Sec. 127, 145, 152, 160, 162. Chap, iii, 
Sfec. 26, 50. 



t)o Viese oppose what they know to be the doctrine of Christ 
and his apostles?" 

I ask you, sir, how those men (i kn£w distinctly" what the 
apostles taught? We haye now the writings of the apostles, 
the same which were then communicated to the churches; but, 
according to you and your friends, no uninspired man can 
know distinctly what they teach. Were those, who resisted 
the known instructions of the authorised and inspired teach- 
ers of the gospel, themselves inspired men ? If not, what 
right haye you to say that they knew what the apostles 
taught, any better than uninspired men now may know? Will 
you say that, besides having the writings of the apostles, they 
had the advantages of hearing the apostles preach and con- 
verse? How do you know that Such was the fact with all, if 
it w ere with some of them? Besides, if the apostles could not 
write intelligibly, who shall say that tlicy could preach or 
converse intelligibly? It should seem indeed, that the adver- 
saries of Paul and his doctrine dreaded his writings more 
than his preaching and conversation. "His letters, said they, 
are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, 
and his speech contemptible." 

But further, if those men did know distinctly what the 
apostles taught, did they however know that the apostles 
were "inspired" men? Is it not on the contrary certain, that 
of Paul in particular, they denied both the inspiration and 
apostolick commission? Will ycu take it upon you to say. 
that in this they were not honest? Paul himself, while a zeal- 
ous pharisee, verily thought, notwithstanding all "the signs 
and wonders'' which had been exhibited*, that he ought to do 
many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 
Why then might not those false teachers and others who op- 
posed themselves to Paul, verily think thai! they ought to op- 
pose him and his doctrine ? 

If there is any force in what you state upon this point, it 
lies in this assumption: that those whom the apostles exclud- 
ed from fellowship, as false christians and hereticks, were 
guilty of opposing and rejecting doctrines, which they knew 
to have been delivered under the authority of divine inspira- 
tion; and on this account were "justly excluded as unworthy 



58 

the christian name:" but now there are no such characters, — 
none who reject or oppose what they know to be divinely 
revealed truth. Here, as in other parts of your writings, 
you seem to take it for granted, that mankind are much bet- 
ter now, than they were in the days of the apostles. Then 
their depravity was such, that they would deny and resist 
what they knew to be divine truth ; but now, no man will 
do this. What warrant have you for this assumption? What 
evidence that the heart is not now as "deceitful and despe- 
rately wicked" as ever it was? If men could once reject what 
they knew to be the truth of God, why may they not now? 

Is it however certain, that the opposers of Jesus and his 
apostles, all of them if any, rejected what they knew to be 
divine truth? On the contrary, is it not evident, that, in most 
instances at least, though the evidence before them was clear 
and abundant, yet they found means to make themselves be- 
lieve, that Jesus and his apostles were not "authorized and 
inspired teachers," and that the doctrines taught by them 
were not true. Jesus upon the cross prayed, "Father for- 
give them, for they know not what they do." Paul testifies 
that "had they known, they would not have crucified the 
Lord of glory; and of himself says," that what he did, while 
"breathing out threatening and slaughter against the disci- 
ples of the Lord," he "did ignoranUy in unbelief." It was 
generally so, no doubt, with those who opposed the truth in 
those ancient days. It is just so now. It will hardly be de- 
nied, by any considerate man, that, in christian lands, the 
advantages for knowing the truth are as great now, as they 
were in Judea, or in any part of the world, in the days of 
Christ and his apostles. Where then is the mighty differ- 
ence between those who now reject the truth, and those by 
whom it was then rejected. And if such were not then en- 
titled to the privileges of christian fellowship, by what rea- 
soning, or by what sophistry can it be made to appear, that 
they are now entitled to these privileges. 

The apostles, by your own admission, excluded them: and 
it is not to be forgotten, that they enjoined it also upon the 
churches to exclude them. Many passages to this effect have 
already been cited, and many more might be adduced. The 



59 

primitive churches, though not composed of inspired men, yet 
thought themselves warranted to judge of doctrines whether 
they were true or false; and accordingly, in conformity to 
apostolick example and direction, withdrew themselves from 
those who rejected, or essentially corrupted the gospel* 
Some of them indeed were more faithful in this respect than 
others; and in his solemn addresses to the churches in Asia, 
"He who walketh in the midst of the golden candlesticks," 
particularly commended the more faithful, and severely re- 
buked the more negligent. And I hold it to be a fact, which 
ought not to be controverted, that, in all succeeding ages, 
the purest and best churches, those which have shone as the 
brightest lights in the world, have been the most steadfast in 
the apostolick practice, — the most faithful in keeping sepa- 
rate from those, "who would pervert the gospel of Christ." 

Yet you say, p. 27, <<It is truly wonderful, if excommunica- 
tion for supposed errour be the method of purifying, that the 
church has been so long and so wofully corrupted. What- 
ever may have been the deficiencies of christians in other re- 
spects, they have certainly discovered no criminal reluctance 
in applying this instrument of purification," And in this 
connexion you employ an elegance of imagery, worthy of be- 
ing applied to a much better purpose, together with a vehe- 
mence of reproach, similar to what is often to be met with in 
the writings of the avowed enemies of Christianity. For 
myself however, I am firmly persuaded that it is to be at- 
tributed, not to undue strictness, but to a criminal laxation 
of discipline, that "the church has been so long and so woful- 
ly corrupted." Owing to this laxation, the corrupters of the 
gospel have found it easy to introduce and intrench them- 
selves within the sacred pale; and seizing upon the gates and 
fortresses of the holy city, have made themselves strong, 
have cast down the truth to the ground, have worn out the 
saints of the Most High, and have practised and prospered, 
until they have "rendered the records of the christian commu- 
nity as black, as bloody, as revolting to humanity, as the 
records of empires founded on conquest and guilt." 

You contend nevertheless, p. 28, that mistake in judgment 
is the heaviest charge which one denomination has now a 



60 

right to urge against auother, and you ask, "Bo we find 
that the apostles ever denounced mistake as «awful and fatal 
hostility" to the gospel, that they pronounced anathemas on 
men, who wished to obey, but who misapprehended their 
doctrines." It is already, I trust, sufficiently evident, that 
the nature and general character of mankind are not so dif- 
ferent now from what they were in the apostles' days, as you 
seem to suppose; that there is no such difference between the 
cases of those professed christians, who then opposed and 
perverted the gospel, and those who now do the same, as you 
represent. If mistake in judgment is the heaviest charge, 
which they justly incur now, it is the heaviest which they just- 
ly incurred then.— Bo you imagine. Sir, that those whom 
the apostles "denounced and excluded," made no pretensions 
to sincerity, no professions o f "a wish to obey" the gospel? 
Do not the apostles testify that the false teachers, on whom 
"they pronounced anathemas," transformed themselves inta 
the apostles of Christ? And is it not abundantly manifest, 
that they made very lofty pretensions to sincerity and vir- 
tue, and by good words and fair speeches deceived the hearts of 
the simple? Even the immediate opposers of Christ, on whom 
he pronounced his heaviest woes, claimed to have God, even 
"the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob," for their Fa- 
ther, and in their zeal for God, opposed and rejected his doc- 
trines as blasphemous. There is no evidence to show, nor 
reason to believe, that the adversaries of the truth were not 
as sincere, as candid, as virtuous, and as respectable, in the 
first days of the gospel, as they are in the present age; and 
might as justly claim exemption from every charge, heavier 
than that of "mistake in judgment." 

This however was not the heaviest charge which was 
urged against them. To those who claimed to have God for 
their father, and who were fair and "beautiful" in outward 
appearance, the mild and benevolent Jesus said, "I know you 
that ye have not the love of God in you. Ye believe not, be- 
cause ye are not of my sheep. How can tje believe, which re- 
ceive honour one of another, and seek not the honour which 
cometh from God only?" And he declared that they had 
«<both seen and hated both him and his Father," All this, you 



61 

will please to observe, was said of the pharisees, rabbins, ru- 
lers, and priests, those who "devoted themselves to the study 
of the scriptures," and were regarded by one another, and by 
the world, as "the eminent, the enlightened, and the good." 

I quote these testimonies of the "faithful and true Witness" 
as a specimen, not to intimate that "fallible men" should 
rashly apply or use similar language, but to shew in what 
light He who "knows what is in man," views an obstinate 
disbelief of the truth. Far from regarding it as mere mis- 
take in judgment, he traces it home to an evil heart. Accord- 
ingly he declares in general terms, that "men love darkness 
rather than light, because their deeds are evil." The inspired 
Paul also says, "If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that 
are lost; in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds 
of them which believe not, lest the light of the glonous gospel 
of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." 
And he represents natural men as "having the understanding 
darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the 
ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their 
hearts." To this evil source, this moral depravity, the scrip- 
tures constantly refer disbelief and rejection of the truth. 
Nor do they at all limit this affecting representation to the 
early times of the gospel. On the contrary, the spirit of pro- 
phecy most abundantly foretold, that errours, proceeding 
from the same corrupt source, would abound in times then 
future and distant; and that the last ages of the world would, 
in this respect, be eminently perilous: that men would "turn 
away from the truth, not enduring sound doctrine:" and that 
false doctrines would be propagated in such a manner, by 
such men, and with such pretensions, as would "deceive, were 
it possible, the very elect." 

And is it not most evident, that all which is proud and 
haughty, and corrupt, in the nature of fallen mankind, will* 
in every age, resist the truth of God? — particularly those 
humbling doctrines which declare, that "the heart is deceitful 
above all things and desperately wicked," that "except a 
man be born again, he cannot sec the kingdom of God," that 
men can be justified no otherwise, than "freely by the grace of 
God, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom 



62 

God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his 
blood;" and those which transcend the comprehension of hu- 
man reason, the trinity of persons in the Godhead, — the union 
of the divine with human nature in the person of Christ, and 
the expiation of the sins of the world, by his one offering of 
himself. And is it not equally evident, that all that is self- 
sufficient, and arrogant, and suhtile in man, will employ all 
the resources of "philosophy and vain deceit," to corrupt, 
to discredit, and to subvert doctrines to which the heart is so 
decidedly adverse? 

Still, however, you strenuously insist, p. 29, "Whatever 
may be the right of christians as to bearing testimony against 
opinions Which they deem injurious, 1 deny that they have any 
right to pass a condemning sentence on the characters of men 
whose general deportment is conformed to the gospel of 
Christ. Both scripture and reason unite in teaching that the 
best and only standard of character is the life: and he who 
overlooks the testimony of a good life, and grounds a sen- 
tence of condemnation on opinions, about which he as well 
as his brother may err, violates most flagrantly, the duty of 
just and candid judgment, and opposes the peaceful and char- 
itable spirit of the gospel." 

By the "condemning sentence" of which you here speak, 
I understand you to mean the sentence of excommunication, 
or non-communion; and the principal sentiment of the 
passage, stript of its adventitious circumstances, is, that 
christians have not a right to exclude any from their fellow- 
ship on account of erroneous opinions, or, in other words, on 
account of their corrupting or denying any doctrines of the 
gospel. It is, however, an indisputable fact, as has before 
been shewn, that christians have always, from the days of the 
apostles to the present, held and exercised this as a right and as 
a duty. And I ask you, Sir, do not even Unitarians, do not you 
yourself claim and exercise this right? Is there no case in which 
you would exclude a man from christian fellowship on ac- 
count of erroneous opinions ? In your remarks on my second 
letter, p. 19, you say, "We are convinced from laborious re- 
search into the scriptures, that the great truth, which is the 
object of christian belief, and which in the first ages con- 



63 

ferr'ed the character of disciples on all who received it, i§ 
simply this, that Jesus is the Christ, or anointed by God to be the 
light and Saviour of the world* Whenever this great truth 
appears to us to be sincerely acknowledged, whenever a man 
of apparent uprightness declares to us his reception of Jesus 
in this character, and his corresponding purpose to study and 
obey his religion, we feel ourselves hound to give him the 
hand of christian fellowship." — Be it even so. There is then, 
however, one article of faith, which you hold essential to 
christian fellowship; an article which you have ascertained by 
"laborious research." Should one, who denies the great 
truth that Jesus is the anointed by God to be the light and Sav- 
iour of the world, request the privileges of fellowship in your 
church, however fair his character in other respects might 
be, he could not be admitted. He would be refused simply on 
account of his opinion. And for the same reason, should a 
member of your church, a man of apparent uprightness, avoAv 
his disbelief that Jesus is the Christ, if you and your church 
acted consistently with your declared principle, he would be 
excluded from your fellowship. 

But why should you exclude him? why exclude a man for 
his errour in this one particular? I suppose the plain truth to 
be this: You would hold that he may be si good man, and go to 
heaven, though he disbelieve that Jesus is the Christ,* and 
deny divine revelation altogether. Yet you would say, that 
he cannot be a christian, unless he believe that Jesus is the 
Christ, the anointed by God to be the Light and Saviour of 
the world. But why not? He may acknowledge, as many 
infidels have done, that Jesus Christ was a man of preeminent 
excellence of character, and the best moral teacher or philos- 
opher, that ever appeared in the world; may "declare, with 
apparent uprightness, his corresponding purpose to stud} 
and obey his religion;" and may wish to call himself, and to 
be called a christian, for the same reason that the followers 
of Plato were called Platonists, and others have been called 
after the names of the philosophers or teachers, whom they 
have respectively chosen for their masters. Still, however, 

* Notwithstanding Jesus has said, "If ye leUeve not that lam /,», ve shall fa 
t n t/Quv sins." . ■ ' l 



64 

}ou may say, lie denies the church and its ordinances to be of 
divine institution* and it would be a profanation for him to 
participate in them? Why So? Though he denies them to be of 
divine appointment, he nevertheless acknowledges them to be 
institutions of JesusChrist, whom he acknowledges as hismas- 
ler; institutions eminently conducive to the improvement of 
the social virtues and to the good of society; and he is there- 
fore sincerely desirous of participating with other good christ- 
ians in them. 

Why then, I repeat it, should you refuse him? Why after 
all is it so very important, that he should believe that Jesus 
is the Christ, the anointed by God? 

You will not I presume insist, that the case now supposed is 
such an one as does not and cannot exist? Are there not many, 
who stand almost precisely upon this ground? Is it not so with 
some who are called deists or infidels? Is it not so with those 
unitarians, in Germany and elsewhere, who deny special di- 
vine inspiration altogether, — deny that Jesus is the Messiah 
of the 9ld Testament, — deny that he was, in any special or 
proper sense, anointed by God to be the Light and Saviour of 
the world; and yet call themselves christians! 

What will you do with these men? If you admit them to 
christian fellowship, you must give up what, after "laborious 
research into the scriptures,'' you hold to be the single essen- 
tial article of the christian faith; that which alone "confers 
the character of disciples on all who receive it." If you re- 
fuse them, you incur the guilt of the heinous crime of exclud- 
ing from fellowship, on account of opinion, or of what you 
otherwise call, mere mistake in judgment. — If you say you 
do not "pass a condemning sentence on their characters;' 9 I 
reply, then neither do we on the characters of those whom we 
exclude: and I refer you to what I have said on this topick, 
in the 24 th page of my second letter. You do however pro- 
nounce a sentence importing distinctly, that the excluded per- 
sons arc not christians; for it is upon the very principle, that 
they deny that article of faith, which alone "confers the 
character of disciples," that you exclude them. This is more 
than, in ordinary cases of withholding or withdrawing fellow- 
ship, ive pronounce. 



65 

The difference then between you and us in regard to fel- 
lowship, is not that we exclude on account of opinion, and 
you do not; but it is this: you hold it necessary, only that a 
person believe that Jesns is the Chnst; we hold it necessary, 
that he also believe in the essential doctrines of Christ 3 s religion. 
By what authority you make your specified article the only 
essential article of the christian faith, after some "research in- 
to the scriptures," and after perusing with some attention 
your great authority, Locke, I am still unable to see. Was 
it for tiie denial of this article, and this only, that the apos» 
ties pronounced their anathemas? Did the false teachers who 
troubled the churches of Galatia and Corinth, did Hymeneus 
and Alexander, did those "many antichrists" of whom the 
apostle John speaks, deny that Jesus was the Christ? No: but 
they were excluded for errours of a very different kind. What 
would you think of the man, who should call himself a Plato* 
nist, merely because he acknowledges Plato to have been a 
great philosopher, while at the same time he denies all the 
essential doctrines of the Platonick system? Please to answer 
the question; and then apply the answer to the man, who 
professes to be a christian, merely because he acknowledges 
Jesus to be the Christ, and yet denies all the essential doc- 
trines of the christian system. 

How, after reconsidering the subject, you will decide re- 
specting those, who deny your one essential article, I know 
not, nor am I greatly concerned to know. At present, how- 
ever, according to your own account, you have your creed, as 
well as we ours; a short one indeed, as one of your respecta- 
ble friends has eloquently expressed it, "contained in on& 
bright line; 99 yet a creed which is exclusive! Yes, Sir, you 
yourselves do the very tiling, which you so vehemently con- 
demn in us! You exclude from christian fellow ship on account of 
opinion! 

What then becomes of all your rhetorical declamations, 
your inflammatory invectives, your violent charges of per- 
secution? They might all be retorted with all their force 
upon yourselves. Such characters as I have described, by 
whatever name they may be called, might adopt your own 
language, and with equal pertinency and modesty, say. 



66 

"For" ourselves, we "know not a shadow of pretence for the 
language of superiority assumed by" Mr. Cbanning "and 
his brethren. Are they exempted from the common frailty 
of our nature? Has God given them superior intelligence? 
Were they educated under circumstances more favourable to 
improvement than those whom they condemn? Have they 
brought to the scriptures more serious, anxious, and unwea- 
ried attention? Or do their lives express a deeper reverence 
for God? No. They are fallible, imperfect men, possess- 
ing no higher means, and no stronger motives for studying the 
word of God than their" excluded "brethren." Our "offence 
is, that we read the scriptures for" ourselves, and derive 
from them "a different opinion on" one "point," from that 
which others have adopted. Mistake of judgment is our pre- 
tended crime, and this crime is laid to our charge by men 
who are liable to mistake as "ourselves," and who seem to 
«usf' to have fallen into "one" of the grossest errours.* A 
condemning sentence from such judges carries in it no terrour. 
Sorrow for its uncharitableness, and strong disapprobation 
of its arrogance, are the principal feelings which it inspires.'* 
Pages 25, 26. 

Not only, Sir, do you exclude from christian fellowship, 
on account of opinion, but on account of opinion you also pass 
"a condemning sentence" directly "on the characters of 
men," — of men too, I think it right to say, "whose general 
deportment is conformed to the gospel of Christ." Here, in 
addition to the passages just quoted, and which were by you 

* Trinitarians appear to you and your brethren, you say, "to have fallen int» 
some of the grossest errouvs." In another place, p. 16, you tell us, that our "a«£- 
cliiions to the simple gospel seem to you at least as exceptionable as the deficien- 
cies" of Dr. Priestly and Mr. Beisham. And, p. 22, you say, "I am persuaded, 
that at the last day the Trinitarian -ivill be found in a great errour, and were I 
disposed, / could make as moving- an appeal to Ms fears, as Dr. Worcester can 
make to ours." I do not know very well how to reconcile, with these and other 
similar representations, the following passages: "It is from deep conviction, that 
I have stated once and again, that the diflerences between Unitarians and Trini- 
tarians lie more in sounds, than in ideas," &c. "Trinitarians, indeed, are apt to 
consider themselves at an immeasurable distance from Unitarians. The reason, I 
think, is, that they are surrounded with a mist of obscure phraseology. Were 
this mist dispersed, I believe that they would be surprised at discovering their 
proximity to the quarter of the Unitarians," he. Pages 22, 23. One wouW 
think that this "mist" might be "dispersed" — "at the last day." 



applied to the orthodox, I must be permitted to present a few 
more select quotations from your remarks. — "It is truly as- 
tonishing, you say, that christians are not more impressed 
with the unbecoming spirit, the aiTogant style, of those, who 
deny the christian character to professed and exemplary fol- 
lowers of Jesus Christ, because they differ in opinion on some 
of the most subtle and difficult subjects of theology. A 
stranger, at hearing the language of these denouncers, would 
conclude without a doubt, that they were clothed with infalli- 
bility, and were appointed to sit in judgment on their breth- 
ren. This is the fashionable mode of bearing testimony, and 
it is a weapon which will always be most successful in the 
hands of the proud, the positive, and overbearing, who are 
most impatient of contradiction, and have least regard to the 
rights of their brethren. Persecution is a WTong or injury in- 
flicted for opinions, and surely assaults on character fall 
under this definition. Some persons seem to think that per- 
secution consists in pursuing errour with fire and sword; and 
that therefore it has ceased to exist, except in distempered 
imaginations, because no class of christians among us is 
armed with these terrible weapons. But, no. The form is 
changed, but the spirit lives. Persecution has given up its 
halter and faggot, but it breatlies venom from its lips, and se- 
cretly blasts what it cannot openly destroy. Of all earthly 
blessings, an honest reputation is to many of us the most pre- 
cious; and he who robs us of it is the most injurious of man- 
kind, and among the worst of persecutors. Let not the friends 
of denunciation attempt to escape from this charge, by pleading 
their sense of duty, and their sincere desire to promote the 
cause of truth. St. Dominic was equally sincere, when he 
built the inquisition. Humble, meek, and affectionate chris- 
tians are least disposed to make creeds for their brethren,, 
and to denounce those who differ from them. On the con- 
trary, the impetuous, proud, and enthusiastick, men who can- 
not or will not weigh the arguments of opponents, are always 
most positive and unsparing in denunciation. They take 
the lead in a system of exclusion. They have no false mod- 
esty, no false charily*, to shackle their zeal in framing fun- 
damentals for their brethren, and in punishing the obstinate 



68 

in errour. The consequence is, that creeds are formed which 
exclude from Christ's church some of his truest followers, 
which outrage reason as well as revelation. Such has been 
the history of the church." Pages 25 — 34. 

Such, Sir, is the sort of language, which you employ with 
such frequency, such ease, and such assurance, as clearly 
indicate the practice to be habitual with you. I am afraid 
also that no small portion of your "liberal" friends are so 
accustomed to similar language and similar feelings, as to 
have read these passages, and others of the kind in your 
pamphlets, with no other emotions than those of pleasure and 
exultation,* not suspecting in the least, that the spirit of them 
is not perfectly "candid," and "liberal," and "charitable," 
and " mild," and "affectionate," and "modest," and "meek," 
and "humble." 

But is there not here "a condemning sentence passed" di- 
rectly "on the characters of men?" — a sentence of absolute 
destruction! The characters here described are sentence*} 
as destitute of "modesty" and of "charity;" — as "the proud," 
"the impetuous," the "arrogant," "the enthusiastic^;" — as 
either "not able, or not willing to weigh the arguments of 
opponents;" — as "most positive and most unsparing of de- 
nunciation;"-^^ "having the least regard to the right of their 
brethren;" — as "denouncers," possessing "the spirit of perse- 
cution," which, though it "has given up its halter and faggot," 
yet "breathes venom from its lips, and secretly blasts 
what it cannot openly destroy; 99 — as characters who shall in 
vain "attempt to escape from the charge" of being "the most 
injurious or mankind, and among the worst or per- 
secutors." 

Was ever a more "condemning sentence passe*d on the 
characters of men?" Is it possible for one more coiidemning 
to be passed on the very worst of men, — the most execrable 
malignants, and miscreants, that ever troubled the world! 

Upon whom is this sentence passed? Not upon the review- 
ers and the writer of the letters to Mr. Channing only; not 
upon the orthodox ministers and christians of this country 
and of the present age only ; but upon the great body of the 
christian church of all nations and of all ages! You "beg," 



69 

indeed, that it "may not be applied indiscriminately to tlit 
party called orthodox, among whom," you are pleased sav- 
ingly to say, "there are multitudes whose humility and char- 
ity would revolt from making themselves the standards of 
christian piety, and from assailing the christian character of 
iheir brethren." It does, however, from the very terms of 
it, apply to all of every nation and age, who have adhered to 
creeds, and refused fellowship on account oi opinions. Where, 
among orthodox christians, the "multitudes" are to be found, 
who do not fall within this description, it would not, I believe, 
be very easy to point out. 

You will not deny that creeds were used in the early periods 
ef the church. What is called the Apostles' Creed, if it were 
not set forth by the apostles themselves, is however historical- 
ly traced up nearly or quite to the apostolick age, as having 
been then used in the churches with little or no exception. It 
is equally certain, that in those purest and brightest days of 
the church, it was held by all christians right, and a sacred 
duty, to note as hereticks, and to exclude from fellowship, 
those who denied or corrupted the essential doctrines of the 
gospel. Afterwards the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds were 
used along with the Apostles', generally, and with exclusive 
effect, in the orthodox churches. In the age of the Reforma- 
tion, the Protestant churches, Lutheran, Zuinglian, Calvin- 
ian, or by whatever name distinguished, all had their creed, 
and excluded from fellowship those who denied their essential 
articles. And it has been so with the orthodox churches 
generally, from that day to the present. 

It is also a well attested fact, that, by the great body of 
christians, from the days of the apostles to the present, the 
deniers of the Trinity, or of the proper Deity and atonement 
of Jesus Christ, Unitarians of various names, have been re- 
garded as being eminently subverters of the gospel; and as 
little doubt has been entertained of the duty of withholding 
fellowship from them, as from any who have called them- 
selves christians. About two hundred years ago indeed the 
celebrated Episcopius made it a question, whether they might 
not, consistently with the gospel, be admitted to the fellow- 
ship of orthodox churches. But the question, after ardent, 



rt 

and powerful debate, on the Continent and in England, was 
decided in the negative; and in that decision, the orthodox 
churches, with great unanimity, have ever since rested. 

I am then fully warranted in saying, that your condemn- 
ing sentence applies to the great body of the church of Christ 
of all ages and nations. Indeed you yourself very explicitly 
give it this extensive application when you say, with signifi- 
cant emphasis, "Such has been the history of the church." Es- 
pecially docs it apply to those, who, in successive periods, 
have been the most distinguished in "the kingdom and pa- 
tience of Jesus Christ," — who have contended with the most 
holy charity and zeal for the faith once delivered to the saints, 
by whose labours and sufferings the religion of the gospel 
has been, instrumentally, maintained and propagated, — of 
whom the world has not been worthy, — but whose "witness 
is in heaven and their record on high." — And, my dear Sir, 
it is with no common feelings of grief, that I find myself 
compelled to say, that a heavier sentence than yours, against 
the disciples of the Lord, against "the church of the living 
God, the pillar and ground of the truth," has never, I be- 
lieve, been pronounced, by the bitterest of enemies, either pa- 
gan or infidel. 

But why are the servants of the Most High thus condemn- 
ed? Because they have thought it right not to extend christian 
fellowship to such as have denied and sought to subvert, what 
they hold to be the essential doctrijies of their holy religion; doc- 
trines on which they have founded all their hopes of salva- 
tion to themselves and their fellow men, and which they have 
been ready to seal, and in thousands of instances bave actu- 
ally sealed, with their blood. Yes, Sir, it is for this opinion 
of theirs, that you have passed a condemning sentence on 
their "characters," as "the most injurious of mankind, 

THE WORST OF PERSECUTORS, BREATHING VENOM FROM 
THEIR LIPS, AND SECRETLY BLASTING WHAT THEY COULD 

not openly destroy! If then, as you say, persecution is a 
wrong or an injury inflicted for opinions, and assaults on 
character surely fall under this definition;" I solemnly refer 
it to your conscience before God, whether you do not staud 
convicted at your own bar as a persecutor. 



71 

If you say that the great body of orthodox christians* 
whom you have thus vehemently condemned, have not only 
held the obnoxious opinion, but have also expressed it and 
acted upon it, I shall not deny the charge. But that they 
have done it in the bitter and violent manner, which yoi* 
have so frightfully represented, especially in this country, 
and still more especially "in this quarter of our country," I 
do utterly deny; and I challenge you to produce any facts to 
justify in the least your representation. I affirm, with the 
most assured confidence, that if in any part, or in any period 
of the world, a spirit of moderation, forbearance, and kind- 
ness, has been shewn towards those who have been regarded 
as subverters or corrupters of the gospel, it has been in this 
region, and in the present age. Even you yourself acknow- 
ledge, that we "talk to you courteously as friends;" but this, 
in your charity, you choose to represent as "mockery," with 
an insidious intention to "rivet your chains," and "more ir- 
ritating than papal bondage." Of the candour of this rep- 
resentation, I have nothing to say; but have only to remark, 
that, even in the midst of your violent invectives, you have 
reluctantly made, at an unguarded moment, an acknowledge- 
ment of a fact, known and read of all men: the fact, that in- 
stead of the venom and "outrage," which, from the general 
strain of your declamation, "a stranger" would suppose you 
had experienced, you have actually been treated by these 
"most injurious of mankind," with great courtesy and kind- 
ness, — with great tenderness for your characters, and care for 
the preservation of peace. But the "coals of fire which have 
thus been heaped upon your heads," have served, it should 
seem, only to "irritate." 

If, however, the orthodox have expressed their opinion re- 
specting fellowship, and acted upon it, is it not also true, 
that those, from whom they have withheld fellowship, have 
likewise expressed their erroneous opinions, and acted agree- 
ably to them? Doubtless there have always been men who 
have thought it prudent to conceal their opinions. Only, 
however, when their opinions have been avowed, and acted 
©ut, have the erroneous, on account of their errours, been ex- 
cluded. It has been because, that from their opinions, word* 



Have proceeded, which "cat as doth a canker," and deeds 
which tend to the subversion of the gospel, that they have 
been placed out of communion. 

But you say, "Both scripture and reason unite in teaching 
that the best and only standard of character is the life." 
"The whole scriptures teach that he, and he only is a chris- 
tian, whose life is governed by the precepts of the gospel, and 
that by this standard alone, the profession of this religion 
should be tried." "Jesus Christ says, 'By their fruits shall 
ye know them." I have no difficulty in acceding to this state- 
ment. I certainly hold, and wish to be understood to hold, 
that the best and only standard of character, is the life;" 
that "he, and he only is a christian, whose life is governed 
by the precepts of the gospel, and that men are to be "known 
by their fruits." If, however, you mean, as it is evident you 
do, that in estimating or determining christian character, a 
man's opinions, his faith or his disbelief, are not at all to be 
taken into the account; I can assure you, I have not so learn- 
ed Christ. 

The scriptures throughout earnestly and authoritatively 
insist on faith, humble, hearty belief of the truth, as essential 
to christian character. The chistian life is a life of faith. The 
fruits by which the christian is to be known are the fruits of 
faith. Christians arc believers. They are sanctifed through 
ihe truth. Their hearts are purifed by faith. Such is the 
doctrine of scripture. 

It a man discard the gospel altogether, as a cunningly de- 
vised fable, however fair and commendable in other respects 
Ms life may be, you will hardly yourself, I suppose, find in 
him the christian character. If then a man acknowledges the 
gospel to be from God, and even makes a formal profession 
of Christianity, and yet, instead of believing, loving, stead- 
fastly maintaining, and seeking to promote the great and es- 
sential truths of the gospel, disbelieves, hates, opposes, and 
endeavours to discredit and obstruct them; though he may 
be eminently what the world calls honest, and benevolent, and 
amiable, and virtuous; yet must not his christian character 
be materially and eminently defective? Is it not manifest, 
that "his life is" not "governed by the precepts of the gflS- 



pel?"— particularly those leading precepts, which require 
kirn to receive the truth in love, — to obey the truth, to walk 
in the truth, — to do nothing against the truth, — to contend 
earnestly lor the faith once delivered to the saints, — to shine 
as a light in the world, holding firth Hit word of life? These 
christian fruits are certainly wanting in him; and fruits of an 
opposite kind,— fruits as hitter as the "grapes of Sodom, and 
the clusters of Gomorrah," are exhibited. — If he be a pro- 
fessed minister of the gospel, and in addition to the particu- 
lars now mentioned, instead of speaking the true gospel of 
Christ, and declaring all the counsel of God, he preach ano- 
ther gospel, or doctrines subversive of the truth, and employ 
all the advantages of his pnblick station, and all the influence 
of his sacred and engaging character, in counteracting the 
faithful ministers of Christ, representing their steadfast ad- 
herence to the truth as bigotry, their earnest defence of the 
gospel as illiberality, their labours to prevent the spread of 
the pernicious effects of errour, as persecution, their zeal for 
the honour and cause of Christ, as party spirit, and their 
measures for advancing his kingdom, and extending his sal- 
vation, as projects of ambition; — what must we say or think 
of his life? Is it governed by the precepts of the gospel? "Be- 
ware," says He who came down from heaven to guide our 
feet into the way of peace, "Beware of false prophets, which come 
to yon in sheep's clothing, — Ye shall know them by their fru its." 
"False teachers would pretend extraordinary endowments 
wf Learning perhaps, or Sanctity, or Piety, -and an affection- 
ate concern for the happiness of those whom they should ad- 
dress themselves to. But they might he detected by their 
frtiils. For if their doctrine should be found contrary to the 
doctrine of Christ, that is conviction at once, and all their 
grazing pretences are worth nothing. They are false pro- 
phets, because their doctrines are false. What can be a plain- 
er proof of it? Neither is it any objection to this, that our 
Lord afterwards speaks of doing the will of his Father, and 
M working iniquity: for maintaining the truth, is doing God's 
will; and corrupting or resisting it, is working iniquity. 
Therefore, let this be included at least among other bad fniits, 
other works of iniquity. We will allow that an herctick in 
matters of mere revelation, is not so bad a man, generally 
speaking., as an heretkk in morality; but still he may be a 

ID 



much worse man, or, to speak plainer, may do a great deal 
more mischief by his doctrine, than the immoral man may do 
by his example. For besides his propagating dangerous er- 
rours, subverting souls, it is farther to be considered, that he 
sets himself up as a rival teacher, in opposition to the faith- 
ful ministers of Christ. He weakens their hands, frustrates 
their pious labours, perverts their flocks, gives the common 
enemy a handle to insult and blaspheme, raises a kind of 
flame and war in the cburch, and remotely administers, to all 
immorality and dissoluteness of manners, by taking off the 
influence of the best instructions. Religion is not a personal 
thing, which every man may new model or alter for himself. 
It is the joint patrimony of the whole community; and every 
man more or less is accountable to his neighbour for any 
waste made in it. That corrupting the faith is not an innocent 
practice, but a very ill thing, every one knows, or ought to 
know. I speak not of mere mistakes in judgment, but of 
espousing and propagating them; corrupting the faith in im- 
portant articles, and diffusing such corruptions. A life so 
spent, is a wicked life, if opposing divine truths, undermining 
the gospel, and subverting souls, be wicked attempts, as they 
undoubtedly are."* "Be not deceived, my brethren; those* 
that corrupt families by adultery, shall not inherit the king- 
dom of God. If therefore they who do this, according to the 
flesh, have suffered death; how much more shall he die, who 
by his wicked doctrine corrupts the faith of God, for which 
Christ 7cas crucified? He that is thus defiled, shall depart into 
unquenchable fire, and so also shall he that hearkens to him."f 
The Unitarians, however, according to you, are in no re- 
spect wanting in christian character, and have nothing to 
tear from the judgment of men or of God. We regard other 
christians," you say, p. 14, "as brethren, but can in no de- 
gree recognize them as superiours in the church of our com- 
mon Master. We do not dread the censures which they may 
pass on our honest opinions. We rejoice that we have a 
higher judge, whose truth it is our labour to learn, obey, and 
maintain." Who are these other christians, whom you re- 
gard as brethren? Are they the orthodox, whom you have 

* Waterland's Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity, Chap. v. 

t St. Ignatius. Epist. to the Eph. The blessed martyr, it should seem, had 
''learned," even so early as the apostolick age, what you say I have learned — to 
"awaken men's feelings, by addressing their ./ears." He learned it, I suppose, 
from the apostles themselves, as the apostles had learned it from Christ. 



75 

condemned as "the most injurious of mankind," "breath tug 
venom from their lips?" Again, p. 20, "It is not because we 
exalt reason above scripture, but because we revere the scrip? 
tures, that we maintain Unitarian principles.'** — P. 25. "it 
is tryly astonishing that christians are not more impressed 
with the unbecoming spirit, the arrogant style, of those, who 
deny the christian character to professed and ejcemplanj fol- 
lowers of Jesus Christ. P. 28. "Do these oppose what they 
know to be the doctrine of Christ and his apostles? Do they 
not revere Jesus Christ and his inspired messengers?" P. 33. 
"This practice of denouncing— rexalts to supremacy in the 
church, men, who have the least claim to influence. JIfm- 
&le, meek, and affectionate chnstians, are least dis- 
posed to make creeds for their brethren, and to denounce 
those who differ front thcnl." Who those arrogant and 
proud ones are, who, in your estimation, have the let st claim 
to influence, we have beiore seen. They are the orthodox 
christians*" The "exemplary followers of Jesus Christ, the 
humble, meek, and affectionate christians, who have the 
highest claim to influence, and ought to be exalted to supre- 
macy in the church,"! are the Unitarians. **They, f > you af- 
firm, p. 25, ^T'heij are deficient i.v none of the qualifi- 
cations, wlifch were required hi the primitive age.- Ortho- 
dox christians, will readily concede, that they have no |u-e- 
tensions to claims like these. Deeply conscious of many and 
great "deficiencies," they are far from considering them- 
selves as having "already attained, or being already per- 
fect. "We dare not make ourselves of the number, or com- 
pare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they, 
measuring themselves by themselves^ and comparing them- 
selves among themselves, are not wise." 

* In this passage, yon allude, as in the connexion, you do repeatedly, to the 
Statement which [ made in my Second Letter of the sentiments and practice of 
Unitarians, respecting the scriptures; and you treat the subject in that sort c!' eva- 
sive and equivocal manner, to which you sire egregiously addicted. You do not, 
you wdl not, you cannot, deny the correctness of the statement; yet you obliquely, 
and querulously refer to it, as if it were incorrect, and varying the aspect of it, 
would seem to deny it. , 

f In this commonwealth", you, and your "liberal" brethren are already in "the 
chief seats." Tq what othjr "supremacy you woujd wish to be "evalted," or 
can well be exalted, until you increase \ our "numbers, or establish a hierarchy, ! 
do not readilv see. In other parts of our country, and of'lhe rh'r.stiari woiw, it 
must be confessed, it is otherwise. In England", J):-, i'rieslly, it should seem, 
ought to havebeen bishop of St. Asaph's, instead of l>r. liorshy, Mr Lindsay or 
Mr. Belsham, bishop of London, instead of Dr. Porleus, Mr. Wakefield, archbish- 
op of Canterbury, instead of Dr. Moore: and the present dignitaries of the estab- 
lishment, as they "have the least claim to influence," ought to resign their places 
tp the Unitarians, — such, and so many as can be found. 



In the latter part of your remarks, pp. 56 — 42, yuu pre- 
sent a frightful picture of the consequences* which you ima- 
gine must result from what you call "the system of exclusion 
and separation:" that is, the system of non-communion be- 
tween orthodox christians and Unitarians. It would have 
been natural to conclude, from the descriptions which you 
have given of these two classes respectively* that you could 
neither have wished, nor thought it possible, that any thing 
like christian fellow ship should subsist between them. How 
can you indeed wish, how can you think it possible that fel- 
lowship should subsist between the humble, meek, affection- 
ate, exemplary followers of Jesus Christ, and the proud, the 
arrogant, the impetuous, the worst of persecutors, and most 
injurious of mankind, whose venomous breath secretly blasts 
what they cannot openly destroy! Can the wolves and the 
sheep dwell together within the same enclosure, in concord* 
amity, and peace? 

You state, however, that "the system of excluding profess-, 
ed isciples of Christ on account of opinions, is incompatible 
with the great principles of Congregationalism/* In this, 
as you cannot but he sensible, you differ most widely from 
the founders of the Congregational churches, whether we 
consider as the founders the apostles and primitive ministers 
of Christ, or tjie leaders of the Puritans in England and in 
this- country. The apostles certainly established the primi- 
tive churches upon this system; and upon this system the 
leaders of the Vuritans, ami the churches founded by them, 
uniformly acted. Look into the platforms of these churches, 
the Savoy, the Cambridge, and the Saybrook; turn over the 
ecclesiastical records of the primitive times of New England, 
and proof will accumulate upon proof. The Congregational 
churches all had their creeds, their confessions of faith,, and 
all held it as their right and their duty, to withhold and 
withdraw fellowship from all who denied or corrupted the 
essential articles. 

Yet you say, "This system will shake to the foundation 
our religious institutions, and destroy many habits and con- 
nexions which have had the happiest influence on the religious 
character of this people. The annual convention of Congre- 
gational ministers of Massachusetts, that ancient bond of 
union must be dissolved. The association of ministers i» 
our different counties must in many cases be broken uny 



■Neighbouring churches will be mutually estranged. In the 
same church angry divisions will break forth. Many relig- 
ious societies will be rent asunder, their ministers dismissed, 
and religious institutions cease. Discord will be carried not 
only into churches, but into families. The family altar must 
fall." Such are the direful consequences on which your fe- 
verish imagination broods, and to which it has given the 
most dismal colourings. 

Are you not aware, Sir, that this same sort of objection, or 
of argument, might have been used with equal force, and ac- 
tually was used, by the Jews against preaching the gospel 
and establishing christian churches in Judea,-~ by the Pagans 
against propagating Christianity in the lands where their gods 
were worshipped,-^and by the Papists against the doctrines 
of the Reformation, and separation from their church. It is 
a sort of popular argument, which has always been urged 
against disturbing the corruptions of the world, by the exhibi- 
tion and defence of the truth. The awful words of our Lord 
here force themselves into serious recollection. ^Whosoever 
shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my 
Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send 
peace on the earth; I came not to send peace, hut a sword. 
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and 
the daughter against her mother. And a man's foes shall be 
those of his own household."— "Ultimately indeed I shall 
establish peace in every sense of the word," and 'Ashall make 
wars to cease in all the world; but at present, and indeed for 
many years to come, I shall not bring peace, hut a sword 
upon the earth. The promulgation of my religion will be 
productive of much dissention, cruelty, and persecution, not 
only to you, but to all those who, for many ages afterwards, 
shall preach the gospel in purity and truth. The true cause 
of this wiH be the wickedness, and the ferocious passions of 
men; but the occasion and the pretence for it will be the holy 
religion, which you are to promulgate. In this sense, and m 
this only, it is that I may be said to bring a sword upon the 
earth; but they who realty bring it, are the open enemies or 
pretended friends of the gospel." — "He that lovcth father or 
mother, more than me, is not worthy of me, ami he that lovcth 
son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me." "That 
j's evidently when the nearest and dearest relations come in 
competition with our belief in Christ, and obedience to his 



7% 

commands, our auction for them, and deference to their 
opinions must give place to love for our Redeemer and 
attachment to our Maker."* 

But why must these dreadful consequences now ensue? 
The ^system" from which you say -they must result, is not a 
new one. It has been in practice from the first ages of the 
gospel. It has been in practice in our churclies from the 
first settlement of our country. The orthodox churches of 
New-England, of Massachusetts, have always held it right 
to separate from those who essentially corrupt the gospel; at 
no period of our history have they supposed that they ought 
to be in communion with avowed Unitarians; and if at any 
time they have been in communion with them, it is because 
those Unitarians have not been pubiickly avowed and open. 

No Sir; we are not introducing or proposing a nexv sys- 
tem.! ^ e stand upon the "foundation" of our fathers; — the 
venerable founders of our churches, to whom, under God, we 
are indebted for our "religious institutions," and the invalu- 

* Matt, x, S3 — 37. Bishop Porteus's Lecture on the Chapter. 

t You say, indeed, that "we are threatened with neiv tnbunals,or consocia- 
tio?i8;" that "it is a melancholy fact, that our long established congregational 
form of church government is menaced;" and taking your note from the "Lay- 
man," you blow the trumpet of alarm with all your might. Were this the 
proper place, I should feel myself entitled to speak upon this subject with a degree 
of freedom and confidence, if I have ever made myself known for any thing, I 
have for my firm adherence to the principles, my zealous attachment to the lib- 
erties of our Congregational churches. In defence of them, my pen was early 
employed; and in the same cause my feeble voice has been raised in ecclesiastical 
Councils, in the General Association of Massachusetts, and in the Convention of 
Congregational Ministers. My opinion and feelings upon the subjeet remain 
unchanged. 

~" The "Layman" has committed a mistake. He states that "an obsolete manu- 
script of Dr. Cotton Mather, — is now attempted to be imposed upon the chris- 
tian churches of this state, as the rule of their government." The truth is, that, 
by the Report of the Committee of the General Association, to which you and he 
refer, that ancient document iuas entirely set aside; not a scrip of it was retained: 
and it was set aside for the very reason, that it contained principles incompatible 
Vvitli the rights and liberties ot the churches; principles, which, sooner than at- 
tempt to impose them upon the churches, the members of that Committee, some 
of them at least, would have resisted unto uiocd. All therefore that the Layman 
has said on this subject, fills to the ground; and with it, what you have said, as you 
have followed him both in sentiments and words, also falls. 

The plan of Consociation, presented by the Committee, I have considered with 
earnest attention, — have examined and re-examined with anxious scrutiny; and I 
I'm free to declare, that I can see nothing in it repugnant to congregational prin- 
ciples, to the Platform, or to the liDerties of the churches. On the contrary it 
does appear to me well calculated to revive Congregationalism in its purity, to re- 
store the Platform to its legitimate use, to guarantee to the churches their rights 
and liberties, and to secure them from those invasions, infringements, vexations, 
avid usurpations, to which, since the platform has gone so generally into disuse, 
they have been continually exposed. I may be in an errour. The Report how- 
ever, agreeably to the express intention and desire oj the Committee, is before 
tJit publick for free consideration and discussion. To denounce if a9 you have 
done, is more easy than wise. J sincerely hope it will be examined with all the 
fairness and candour, together with all the faithful scrutiny, and jealous care, 
which its nature and importance demand. If you ©r any other man shall make it 
appear to be uncongregational in its principles, or dangerous to the liberties of the 
churches in its provisions, I pledge myselt to exert whatever I may possess ot 
talent or of influence, to prevent its adoption. 



79 

able blessings which have resulted from them to our beloved 
commonwealth and country. We adhere to their faith and 
their worship, to their principles and system of ecclesiastical 
order and discipline; and both the one and the other we- wish 
to maintain and to perpetuate, in their genuine spirit, and 
with all their benign and salutary influence, as an inheri- 
tance to our children and our children's children. You, not 
we, are the innovate rs,— the aggressors, — the assailants. By 
you, not by us, are our religious institutions to Be shaken to 
the foundation," and all those direful consequences, which 
you have so rhetorically represented, are to be produced! 
Are you and your friends, Sir, determined on all this? It 
should seem, from the portentous signal which you hare 
given, that such is the fact.— Then, indeed, "the time is 
come, when" all who venerate the religion of their fathers, 
who love the gospel of Christ, who wish well to the temporal 
and eternal interests of their fellow-men, "are called to 
awake, and to remember their duties to themselves, to pos- 
terity, and to the church of Christ." To affect to despise 
your strength or your means, would not be the part of wis- 
dom. We know very well where your seat is. We know 
tliat you have established yourselves on the high places of the 
Commonwealth; and that you possess advantages for exert- 
ing an influence as extensive as it may be destructive. We 
know too that the earthly dispositions and passions of man- 
kind, and the "imaginations and high things which exalt 
themselves against the knowledge of God," are on your side. 
And we are not unaware how apt many may be to embrace, 
with little reflection and as little concern, a fashionable re- 
ligion which has a shew of wisdom, which makes the offence 
of the cross to cease, which accommodates itself to the spirit 
of the world. 

Are "the slumbering minds of this community," however, 
prepared for such a change as you contemplate? Arc the 
churches, the ministers, the people of Massachusetts, prepar- 
ed to yield up, without a struggle, the consecrated faith and 
worship, the religious and ecclesiastical principles and insti- 
tutions of their ancestors? Are they prepared to renounce 
the religion, and place themselves out of the fellowship of the 
general Church of Jesus Christ, and to embrace a religion, — .. 
an unblest religion, — which has never, in any country, or in 
any fige, been admitted to that holy fellowship? Are they pre- 
pared publickly to declare against tbe Divinity and atone- 



80 

Indent of Him, who is "Hie propitiation for the sins of the 
world," and in whose name alone there is salvation for men? 
to "break his hands asunder, and to cast away his cords 
iiVnn them!" — I trust in God that they are not. I trust, that 
they that are with us* are more than they that are with you; 
and that the God of our fathers has not yet forsaken the 
churches, which they planted with so many prayers, and 
watered wi^ so many tears. It is devoutly hoped that " re- 
jecting laymen," and all the people* will open "their eyes to 
this subject" a subject which most deeply concerns both 
their temporal and eternal interests, and than which no other 
can have a higher claim to their earnest and serious consid- 
eration. I deem it by no means too solemn* to refer them to 
the awful warning of the second Psalm. "Be wise now 
therefore, ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. 
Kiss the Son lest ]\& be angry, and ye perish from the way 
when his wrath is kindled but a little, 

I ask however again, why must those consequences, so 
baleful to society, to churches, and to families, ensue? If 
Unitarians are "humble, meek, affectionate christians," it 
surely should he little expected, that a spirit of discord, and 
strife, and animosity, and bitterness, and violence would be 
displayed by them; and little of such a spirit, I sincerely hope 
and am firmly persuaded, will be displayed by the orthodox, 
notwithstanding the heavy accusations which you have 
brought and may continue to bring against them. I repeat 
what I said in my Second Letter, and I do it with the utmost 
sincerity and earnestness: "Though we differ and widely 
differ in our opinions; — though we engage in debate on most 
important and interesting points; — though we should find oc- 
casion even to separate as to christian fellowship; yet there 
need not be, there ought not to he, and if our tempers wci e 
right there would not be, any bitterness, or wrath, or anger, 
or clamour, or evil speaking on either side. The gospel 
teaches us to exercise unfailing charity and good will, not 
only towards those whom we receive to christian fellowship, 
hut towards all men." AVherever then we can meet, let 
us meet with mutual courtesy and kindness; wherever we can 
cooperate for any good object, let us amicably and heartily 
cooperate; and where we must part, let us part in the spirit 
©f peace, and with sincere desires and prayers for each other's 
good. Yours, Rev. and dear Sir, with affection and respect, 

Salem, Dec. 1815. S. WORCESTER. 

\ 



Are you a Christian or a Calvinist ? 



DO YOU PREFER THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST TO 
THAT OF THE GENEVAN REFORMER 2 



BOTH THE FORM AND SPIRIT OF THESE QUESTIONS BEING 

SUGGESTED BY THE LATE REVIEW OF AMERICAN UNITARI- 

ANISM IN THE PANOPLIST, AND BY THE REV. MR, 

WORCESTER'S LETTER TO MR. CHANNING. 



TO WHICH ARE ADDED, 



SOME STRICTURES ON BOTH THOSE WORKS> 



BY A LAYMAN. 



* 



BOSTON: 

D AND PUBLISHED BV WELLS AND LILLY 

1815. 



Are you a Christian or a Calvinist ? 



I expect the intolerant among the disciples of Calvin will 
be ready to consign a layman to the fate of " unregenerate 
reprobates" who shall dare to intermeddle with the sacred 
mysteries of their faith. Their master would never suffer 
any one to question his doctrines under pain of the fagot. 
He wished to dethrone the pope only that he might put 
the tiara on his own head. His disciples in this country, 
and in this alone, retain the same spirit. They would have 
it believed, that the laity are to adopt their faith from them, 
as they have taken it from Calvin ; and the pains and penal- 
ties of infidelity and excommunication are now openly 
denounced against those, who shall call in question any one 
of the dogmas uttered two centuries ago by an uninspired 
priest of Switzerland. 

If some future historian of the church shall relate, that in 
the beginning of the nineteenth century, in a country whose 
constitutions secure the freedom of religious opinion, and 
require only a general belief of the christian religion, a set 
of men combined to write down all who ventured to think 
for themselves, to raise the cry of heresv against those who 
preferred the scriptures as the rule of their faith to any 
human creed, it certainly will be deemed incredible. Pos- 
terity will require some collateral evidence of the fact. 
They will search the records of our historical societies, and 
the alcoves of our colleges, for any controversial writings 



4 ARE Y0I7 A CHRISTIAN 

which may confirm so improbable a story. It is with a 
view to furnishing such a document that I write. I do not 
mean to enter into the subtleties of a theolcgical controversy, 
which would be unsuitable to a layman, if he were capable 
of it. The principal end I propose, is to examine our 
rights, and to put on record this alarming and injurious, 
and bold attempt to invade them in such a country, and in 
such an age. It is one of the facts in the history of human 
nature, that deserve to be noticed. 

There is one point in which all parties are agreed, that 
the christian religion reposes for its foundation on the sacred 
scriptures contained in the Old and New Testament. 
Some difference of opinion arises, to be sure, as to 
the degree of inspiration which the writers of those books 
possessed ; but in those books, it is admitted, are contained 
all the rules of our faith and conduct as christians. These 
scriptures were originally written either in the Greek or 
Hei>rew languages. They were for nearly fifteen centu- 
ries unprinted, and were only preserved by manuscripts or 
written copies. These copies were scattered over the 
whole world, from Abyssinia to the remotest north, and 
from Spain to Hindostan. 

No two editions, even of printed books, ever would pre- 
cisely agree with each other, and of course it could not be 
possible that these manuscripts, in so many languages, and 
in countries so separated, should be alike ; and it is only 
by a comparison and collation of many, that any approxi- 
mation to the certainty of the purity of the text can be 
obtained. 

The present translation in common use in our churches 
was made by order of James the first, two centuries ago. 
Its general fidelity and correctness are admitted, but there 
must be room for improvement. The knowledge of the Greek 
and Hebrew languages has become much more generally 



OR A CALVIN1ST? g 

diffused than it was when that translation was made. Many 
critical inquiries have since been made 'into those languages, 
and more erudition has been displayed since that period than 
before. New copies of the Bible have been discovered and 
collated with the old manuscripts. Some errours and many 
defects, especially in perspicuity, have been found in the 
translation now in use. One or two most important in- 
terpolations have been discovered, and are admitted to 
be such by all the learned men of Europe of all sects. 

The object of this statement will presently be seen. An 
honest layman, who has no esprit du corps, no fear for the 
power and influence of his sect or profession ; who consi- 
ders religion too sober and serious a thing to be the subject 
of party feelings and spirit, would naturally say upon such 
a statement, " It is my duty to get, if I can, the very copies 
of the scriptures that the authors respectively wrote with 
their own hands, and to learn the languages in which they 
are written ; and to take as a standard of faith only what I find 
there written, and not what fallible men have inferred from 
them." But as he cannot get these originals, and as he may 
not have time or talents to learn the languages in which they 
are written, he will take the best translation he can find, and 
he will naturally infer, that the last one, if executed by 
learned and pious men, will be the most perfect. As he 
finds there are faults of great moment in the old translation 
of the Bible, he will be' anxious to attend to and inquire 
after every improvement. Such ought to be, and such 
would be, the conduct of every anxious inquirer after truth. 

Now let us see what is called orthodoxy in the present 
enlightened age. 

It is contended, that the translation made by order of 
king James the first, is entitled to the fullest faith. It is 
regarded by many as inspired, and men are called heretical 
and wicked, who endeavour to procure a better translation, 
and desire any alteration in the present English text. 



£ ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

Now what does this involve ? Not only, that you believe 
the apostles inspired, but that every clerk and copyist 
(whether slave or monk) was also inspired ; that even the 
orthodox men, who made the interpolations to suit their 
dogmas, were inspired ; and that all the bishops and divines 
who made the translation were inspired. I introduce this 
point first, because it comes first in order. 

The orthodox also maintain, that certain opinions and 
•peculations, not to be found in the scripture, bufc which 
Calvin declared he believed were intended to be placed 
there, or pretended that he discovered in them, and certain 
other opinions, held by an assembly of Divines in Great 
Britain, are to be received as the rule of our faith ; however 
impossible we may find it to understand such doctrines, 
and even if upon the most accurate examination and impar- 
tial inquiry we shall be convinced, that no such doctrines 
are contained in the scriptures. 

The real point, and the only point, of difference between 
those who are called the liberal clergy and the orthodox, 
rests on this ground. 

The orthodox believe in Calvin and the Westminster 
Assembly ; the liberal christians in Christ and his apos- 
tles. The former are Calvinists — the latter, Christians. 
Yet so intolerant and unreasonable are the party who have 
arrogated to themselves the title of orthodox, that they 
venture to deny the name and title of christians to the fol- 
lowers of Christ, and apply it exclusively to the followers 
of Calvin and of human councils, assemblies, and creed- 
makers. 

Let us take as an example the subject, which has been 
the occasion of the late attack on the followers of Christ. 

Jesus Christ himself was an Unitarian. To be sure 
that particular title was unknown in his day. So explicit 
was his language, that no man dared during his life to ad- 



OR A CALVINIST? J 

vance a doctrine so derogatory to his God and father, 
as the plurality of Gods, or the equality of the Son with 
the Father. 

So far as his conduct, his language, his example and 
his precepts can have any weight in deciding what was his 
own relative character, and what were his notions of the unity 
and indivisibility of God, they fully support the proposition, 
that he was in the simple sense of the word, an Unitarian. 
He uniformly declares, that all his power, all his authority, 
all his miracles are derived from God. The form of prayer 
which he enjoined upon his disciples is purely Unitarian ; 
that is, it is founded on the idea, that there is but one God 
over all, distinct from himself or any other created being, 
and that to him, and him alone, are due adoration and praise. 

Dr. Worcester asserts, that the doctrine of the trinity is 
one of those essential points without the belief of which no 
man can be a christian. Yet Christ himself, who came into 
the world for the sole purpose of revealing to man the will 
of God, has studiously concealed from us any such doc- 
trine ; nay, he has led us to believe by repeated and express 
declarations, that he was in every respect distinct from and 
inferiour to the God and father who sent him, and whose 
messenger he declares himself to be. It is then because 
Dr. Morse and Dr.' Worcester know more of the character 
of God and of our Saviour, than Jesus Christ knew of him- 
self, that we are called upon to believe this incomprehensible 
doctrine, and to reject and view with abhorrence those 
venerable pastors, who prefer the authority 9i Christ to that 
of these fallible mortals. I premised that I did not intend 
to enter into the argument upon any of the disputed points. 
In this I only imitate the Rev. Dr. Worcester and the 
charitable and polite editors of the Panoplist. It is not 
because, though a layman, I am entirely unacquainted with 
the great points of the controversy, but it is because I think, 



8 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

if, at this day, argument be necessary on this topick, it is 
the province of learned men, whose professional pursuits 
have better qualified them for the task. My object is, 
simply, to shew that the Panoplist and Dr. Worcester have 
assumed too much, in asserting that the doctrine of the 
Trinity is a fundamental article in the creed of a Christian. 

It would be the greatest reproach to the Deity, to his Son 
Jesus Christ, and to the gospel which he taught, to suppose, 
that a doctrine, fundamental and essential to salvation, was 
not only not directly and plainly enforced in the same per- 
spicuous manner, in which the doctrines of a future state, of 
charity, of purity of life, are inculcated, but fhat Christ 
should have used such a great number of expressions indi- 
cating his own inferiority, and the unity of God, which 
must necessarily lead men astray from an essential truth. 

It cannot be denied, that the unity of the supreme God 
not only is more consonant to enlightened reason, apart 
from revelation, but that it was the prevailing sentiment of 
the patriarchs, prophets, and distinguished men, whose lives 
and opinions are recorded in the Old Testament. 

Dr. Worcester insinuates very distinctly, that the doc- 
trine of the gospel, the doctrine taught by our Saviour, the 
doctrine believed and maintained by many venerable and 
learned men in Europe and our country', as to the unity of 
God, is injurious to the character of the supreme Being, is 
a very different and inferiour sort of reJigion, from that which 
Calvin and Athanasius, and Morse and himself hold ; and 
that for this re^on, no communion ought to be held with 
such christians. 

Let us examine how far this is true, and which party 
hold doctrines the most injurious to the supreme Being, and 
to his Son, whom he sent into the world to enlighten, to 
reform and to save us. 



OR A CALVINIST? 9 

In the first place, in regard to the supreme Being. Is it 
more honourable to his character to assert that his power is 
divided, that there are three coequal beings in the Godhead, 
who may be opposed in will, in capacity, in power ? In what 
does this differ from the polytheism of the ancienis, except 
in number ? We have dethroned the three hundred gods of 
Greece and Rome, and we substitute in their place three 
Gods of our own creation. 

In the second place, as to our Saviour himself. Is it 
honourable to him to contradict the doctrines which he 
taught? In all his language he was solicitous to exalt the 
Father above himself. " Not my will, but thine be done." 
Yet in face of this declaration it is asserted, that they were 
the same persons, or constituted the same God. If they 
were the same God, how could the will of the Father be 
done, and the will of the Son be left undone or unaccom- 
plished ? 

He also repeatedly declares, that the works which he 
did, and the miracles which he wrought, were not his own 
works, but those of the Father who sent him. 

I know the metaphysical distinction, which was invented 
in the ages of scholastick philosophy to reconcile this appa- 
rent contradiction, that our Saviour had two natures, one 
divine and the other human, and that all the expressions of 
this sort which he uses, refer to his human character. But 
what an idea does it give of the supreme Being, that he 
ihould make a revelation to mankind, founded on the nicest 
metaphysical subtleties, which would be utterly incompre- 
hensible to the greater part of those who were bound to 
believe them on pain of eternal damnation ? 

No. The gospel is no such snare. It is an injurious 

representation of it. The essential points are taught 

clearly and distinctly. There is one God, over all, the 

Father and Creator of the universe. He sent his £W 

2 



10 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

info the world to announce to mankind the most sublime 
truths, to seal those truths with his blood. But he com- 
manded him to declare and to teach, as he did, that there 
is but one God, the Father and Judge of all (he earth, 
from whom all blessings flow, whose messenger he was, and 
upon the acceptance and belief of whose doctrines, men 
would be accepted by God who sent him. Every thing 
in this representation is more sublime, more honourable to 
the supreme Being than in the other. But the idea, that the 
supreme Governour of the universe, in his proper person, 
took upon himself the human nature, that he suffered upon 
the cross, that the Godhead was for a time divided, and part 
of if was on earth suffering persecution and insult from men, 
and part in the heavens regulating and governing the world, 
in addition to its incomprehensibilities, is infinitely deroga- 
tory to the greatness and majesty, which we are taught to 
ascribe to the Maker and Governour of the Universe. 

It is a curious fact, but no less curious than true, (and it 
shews the propensity of mankind to accommodate every 
thing, even the most sublime doctrines, to their own 
schemes and party passions) that the general tenour of all 
the scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, has 
been overlooked and disregarded, and that particular pas- 
sages, contradicted by their general tenour, have been made 
the foundation of a creed, which is utterly opposed to the^ 
great scope and object of revelation. 

If it were possible to burn all the decrees of councils, so 
often contradictory, so profane, so wicked, such flagrant 
proofs of the weakness and perversity of men ; if all the 
metaphysical writers and the authority of assemblies could 
be annihilated and forgotten ; if the scriptures could be deliv- 
ered to mankind unbiassed by authority; if no establishments 
existed in anycountry founded on sectarian principles ; it is 
not to be doubted, that the worship of one true God, the Father 



OR A CALVINIST? \\ 

and Governour of the universe, would prevail throughout 
every country, in which the scriptures Avere read ; and due 
and sublime honours would be rendered to his Son who was 
made the glorious instrument of revealing these truths to 
mankind. Men would then be as fearful of placing the Son 
on an equality with the Father, as he himself was. They 
would be contented to assign hiA'a place at his right hand, 
as the first and greatest of created beings who had appeared 
in this world. They would view him as their kind and be- 
neficent Saviour and Mediator, but they would shudder at 
the thought of enthroning him with the awful but beneficent 
God, the almighty Maker and Governour of the universe. 

We all know the lofty ground, upon which the Calvinists 
maintain their doctrines, and we equally know the weakness 
of that foundation. It rests upon what they are pleased to 
call the authority of councils and assemblies, or as they 
style it, the uninterrupted opinions of the venerable reform- 
ers and of the ancient churches since the reformation. This 
authority is the same upon which reposes the infallibility 
of the Romish church. The doctrine of transubstantiation 
has this same basis, and is not lest plausibly supported by 
scripture. The points upon which the reformers differed 
from the ancient church, are not more clearly or satisfacto- 
rily proved, than are the opinions upon which the Lardners 
and Watts's and Paleys have ventured to dissent from the 
Calvinistick school. But when it is recollected, that till 
within the last century, faith was settled by ecclesiastical 
authority, and heresy was punished with flames; when it iB 
known that to this day, dissent, with respect to the clergy, 
is followed even in England with expulsion from the church, 
and to all with many civil disabilities ; and that in our country 
similar penalties have been inflicted on those who ventured 
to prefer the gospel to the Assembly's Catechism, or our 
Saviour as their leader to Calvin, wise laymen, who do not 



12 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

mingle in theological controversies, will not attribute much 
weight to the antiquity or prevalence of certain dogmas. 

We agree with Dr. Worcester, and we are happy to 
agree with him in some points, that south of Massachusetts 
there is very little freedom of religious opinion. Men must 
think as they are bid, not as they believe. 

Those men in all countfles who pursue the clerical pro- 
fession are generally poor. They rely on the hierarchy 
or governing party for their patronage and recommenda- 
tion. In Europe, and even in England, such is the supe- 
riour splendour of the established churches, so poor and 
humble, though firm and resolute are the dissenting societies, 
that it requires something of an apostolical firmness to resist 
the temptation of conformity. 

In our own country, till within fifty years, the same spirit 
of intolerance had ehoaked up the channels of free inquiry.. 
But if the scriptures should ever get to be popular, if they 
should ever attain to a fair equality with the creeds of the 
Westminster Assembly, and rival in some degree the dog- 
mas of Dr. Morse, and the decisions of Dr. Worcester, we 
should have very little doubt that Christ would soon be- 
come the leader instead of Calvin, and the Bible take the 
place of the Assembly's Catechism. This day we feel to 
be distant. We know that there are some determined 
spiiits, that are resolved to stand by their peculiar doc- 
trines, rather than those of the gospel. They are induced 
to do this, pajtly because mystery and passion, and their 
peculiar tenets, recommend them to the common class of 
hearers. The Sybilline oracles owed a great portion of their 
authority to their incomprehensibility. The teachers of a 
doctrine which the hearers do not understand, are supposed 
by them to have supernatural gifts. This idea is encouraged, 
and kept up, and we could not notice but with a smile the 
comparison seen by the Rev. Dr. Worcester, between hin>- 



OR A CALVINIST? 13 

self and friends, and the early apostles. He and his party, 
he thinks, are as much entitled to decide authoritatively 
upon the scriptures, as were the men upon whom the Holy 
Ghost descended, though they have not the power of con- 
firming the truth of their doctrines by miracles. Hence, 
that very reverend gentleman treats with much levity and 
wit Mr. Channing, whose character is truly apostolick, 
though he pretends to no inspiration. 

I shall hereafter notice the unfairness with which the let- 
ter of Mr. Channing is treated ; but at present I shall con- 
fine myself to the point in question, how far an acquies^ 
cence in the doctrines of Calvin is a proof of their correct- 
ness. It is known that the English divines adopted them, and 
the thirty-nine articles are partly founded upon them. That 
church also adopts the Athanasian creed, and still continues 
it in its formula. There is not a congregation in Massachu* 
setts or Connecticut which would not shudder at its recital, 
nor is there a clergyman in either state who would dare to 
repeat itlfrom his desk. 

If then all men in this country agree to renounce, as too 
horrible for utterance, one portion of the orthodox creed 
sanctified by the usage of many centuries, to what amounts 
the boasted authority of the Westminster confession of 
faith ? 

In Massachusetts, the prevailing opinion is perhaps yet 
Calvinistick, and so thoroughly have the disciples imbibed 
the spirit of their master, that they will permit no straggling 
partizans, no wavering opinions. They must swallow Calvin 
and all his works as the test of their orthodoxy, or they are 
denounced as hereticks. Those who doubt, or are even 
moderate and candid, are damned. The Panoplist, allu- 
ding to these unhappy victims of moderation and christian 
feelings, says, " There are others too, who are too modest 
and unassuming to preach or act decisively, because /or- 



14 ARE vou A CHRISTIAN 

sooth they are not satisfied about certain controverted 
points. Let such persons abandon the office of teaching 
and return to their studies till they are satisfied." 

We have seen insolence in all its forms. "VVe have seen 
the quintessence of tyranny in the person of the late em- 
perour of France, but never did ire meet with an exam- 
ple of such arrogance. 

Do the clergy of Massachusetts, Calvinistick or Ar- 
minian, Arian or Hopkinsian, mean to encourage snch sen- 
timents ? Can there be a more honest or honourable reason 
for forbearing to touch controversial points, than that a man 
is not satisfied about them ? The editors of the Panoplist 
virtually recommend to such men who conscientiously have 
scruples, to quit their livings, abandon their families, and go 
to Andover (for that must be the meaning) to get indoctri- 
nated. 

Suppose a candidate of this school settled with a full con- 
viction of Calvinism, having obtained the certificate (which 
they are so eager to withhold in case of conscientious scru- 
ples) should change his mind, or at least have doubts 
excited, what is this advice ? 

" You have had all the learning which Professor Stewart 
could infuse into you, you have all the grace and goodness 
and unction which Dr. Morse could communicate, yet inas- 
much as you have doubts, as you are 'too modest and unassu- 
ming' to preach Calvin against Christ and against your own 
conviction, you must turn your children into the streets, and 
come back to Andover to be reinstated in orthodoxy V* 

Great and benevolent God ! Jesus, thou gracious and 
divine Master ! Is this the religion which you intended to 
inculcate ? The confident and assuming, the immodest 
and impudent only can retain their stations as teachers of 
your divine religion, but the " modest and unassuming," 
those who have conscientious scruples about admitting the 



OR A CALVINIST? 15 

jargon of men who have disgraced jour name and your 
religion, are to be discarded from the ministry ! 

It is not in Massachusetts alone (hat the works of perse- 
cution and intolerance are wrought. The lay part of the 
community have suffered themselves to be enthralled in 
every part of the Union. No man has a higher respect for 
the clergy than we have, but we fear they are undermining 
their own influence, and giving power to their adversaries 
by this intolerant conduct towards one another. We shall 
not allude to the cases which we all have known in Con- 
necticut, in which good men were driven away from their 
flocks, on account of maintaining evangelical doctrines 
against the creeds and opinions of men. 

But this we must state. An orator at one of their publick 
exercises before commencement, most distinctly recom- 
mended the study of the classicks, and urged it on the 
ground, that they were more sedulously perused in a sister 
college, (meaning, as we believe, at Cambridge) and that this 
knowledge was there perverted to the purposes of " infideli- 
ty ! /" There is something so unchristianlike in a sentiment 
of this sort, so utterly unfounded and notoriously false, that 
it requires all the charity which the gospel enjoins to for- 
give it. 

It is the more unjust, as they knew at that time, that our 
university had recently sent forth the most learned and able 
work in defence of Christianity, by a young man since elected 
to a professorship in our college, that America had ever 
produced. 

They knew then, and they know now, that for zeal for the 
truth and authenticity of the scripture, for respect to the 
christian religion, and for ardour in its dissemination, the 
University of Cambridge yields to no seminary in our 
country. 



18 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

No. It was a sentiment derogatory to the orator, and 
equally so to those, who, I am grieved to say, approved it. 
It was a sentiment arising from an unworthy spirit of rivalry 
and jealousy, a narrow feeling of religious prejudice. The 
officers of the college at Cambridge were to be charged 
with infidelity, for not bowing to the authority of the ortho- 
dox formula, and yielding obedience to the rescripts of the 
Calvinistick papacy. Never did a sentiment injurious to any 
other college, escape from the lips of any student at Cam- 
bridge in a publick exercise. We know too well what we 
owe to our own dignity ; and whatever the emissaries of that, 
and of other colleges, settled in our state, may do to irritate 
us and to build up their own seminaries ; however zea- 
lously they may work to weaken our institution, and propa- 
gate calumnies to render our Alma Mater odious, we shall 
abstain from recrimination. We confide in the just and 
equitable feelings of our people, that they will never per- 
mit the tongue of slander to alienate their affections from 
an establishment, which has been the great and best 
source of blessings to our country, and which was never 
better administered, nor upon principles more truly 
christian, than it is at the present moment. 

Considering then, that non-conformity to the dogmas of the 
church has in most ages and in most countries been punished 
with death, and in all with the loss of publick reward, it 
would seem to be no very powerful argument in favour of 
any tenets, that they had been maintained for a great period 
of years and by very respectable divines. 

Even in our own country, the Review in the Panoplist 
now in question, and the letter of Dr. Woicester, alibi d 
pretty strong proofs of the danger of dissenting from pre- 
vailing creeds. Our venerated clergymen, to be sure, are 
not carried to the stake, but they are scourged wilh thongs 
of scorpions. These orthodox gentlemen, as if ex Cathe,- 



«>R A CALVINIST? 1/ 

dra, have issued their bulls of excommunication, and (what 
I believe the bulls did not usually contain,) all the malignity 
of caustick wit is exerted to render the excommunicated 
odious and detestable. 

Yes. I will not except Dr. Worcester from this charge, 
though he flatters himself he has concealed the gall under a 
cover of honey. 

When I read the Review in the Panoplist, I asked myself 
what honourable or even honest end do these gentlemen 
propose to themselves ? 

Is it the advancement of God's glory, and the mainte- 
nance and spread of truths which they deem important ? 

They have certainly a strange way of effecting their 
design. Is God to be glorified by an exulting, haughty and 
insolent triumph over brethren who are in errour ? 

Does the glory of God require, that the most shameful and 
gross misrepresentations and perversions should be used to 
excite and prejudice the publick mind against the victims 
of these holy gentlemen's wrath ? 

Upon whom, and in what maimer was this Review and Dr. 
Worcester's voluntary, and, as I shall shew, most unhappy 
defence of it, intended to operate ? 

Are they interred for the benefit of the pretended cul- 
prits, the hereticks themselves ? Is it believed that Mr. Chan- 
ning, and Mr. Thacher, and Dr. Kirkland will be convinced 
or reformed, or, if they please, frightened, by this denuncia- 
tion ? Had they so little knowledge of human nature as to 
think, that detected calumny would not finally redound to 
the honour of the calumniated ? Or did they hope ! j sow- 
discord among their respective parishes ! Did they encou- 
rage the malignant expectation, that they should excite dis- 
trust among the member s of their churches, infuse a little 
gall where nothing but nectar had flowed, produce bitterness 
instead of love, lessen the veneration and affection almost 
3 



1 g ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

-unexampled, which the citizens of Boston entertain, and 
justly entertain, for their pastors, and diminish their salu- 
tary, I had almost said, divine influence, over the lives and 
morals of their people ? Or did they encourage the still 
prouder thought, that by their eloquence, so tenderly, so 
fairly, and so powerfully exerted, they could utterly uproot 
these gentlemen in the esteem of their friends and flocks, 
and suddenly convince them, that they had been nurturing 
in their bosoms a set of hypocrites, of infidels ; men who, 
under the guise and garb of religion, had been secretly 
undermining their dearest hopes, and blighting the fair 
fruits of religion in their hearts? Did they hope to make 
their respective parishioners believe, that Lalhrop and 
Channing, and Lowell and Thacher were men of deceit and 
artifice, making their religion a mere cloak to serve the 
cause of infidelity, and that Dr. Morse was the only man in 
the vicinity true in the "faith once delivered to the saints," 
and full of charity and good works 1 I appeal to the feelings 
of all the persons who have so long known these venerated 
clergymen, whether they can believe that such was the 
object of the Panoplist and Dr. Worcester ? Do you think, 
my brethren, they aimed at your conversion and salvation, 
when they plunged the dagger into the hearts of your pastors 
and friends ? 

But perhaps Dr. Worcester will say, " this is declama- 
tion and an appeal to the passions," as he has said of Mr. 
Channing's letter. 

And pray, if a man calls you a murderer, or an adulterer, 
when you are without stain, and does not condescend to 
reason or argue, what course have you, but to appeal to 
your known character ? and does the gospel or any other 
code of morals require, that you should be so lukewarm as 
to appear indifferent to your own reputation ? How much 
more then is zeal, and honest ardour commendable in the 



OR A CAL;VlNiST<f I# 

defence of our friends whom we have long known and justly 
value ! ! Yes ! I am ready to acknowledge that any doc- 
trine which would compel me to belies e that Dr. Morse 
was a saint and Mr. Channing a sinner, that the first was 
acceptable to God, while Ihe other was the object of his 
wrath, that the former was the friend of Jesus and the lat- 
ter hie foe, I should for that reason alone reject. I should 
do it on just grounds. For I should say, " my reason may 
be fallible, arguments may deceive me, but experience can- 
not. I know Mr. Channing to be practically the admirer 
and follower of Jesus. I am not so well convinced as to his 
accusers." I know it is a short way of reasoning, but for 
a layman it is safer than to enter into all the subtleties of the 
schools. I say therefore, Dr. Morse may be a better Cal- 
vinist. He might perhaps contend more zealously, and be 
more ready to burn Mr. Thacher as his master did Serve- 
tus, but I doubt whether he is a better christian ; that is, 
I doubt whether he has a greater love for Christ, or is more 
disposed to obey his precepts. 

I will own, that I have derived actual and great light from 
this Review and Dr. Worcester's letter, as to the respective 
merits of the Calvinistick and Christian parties. 

I find the former intolerant, disposed to slander and 
backbite their brethren. I find, under colour of great zeal 
for the cause of religion, they indulge the most malignant 
passions, passions which our Saviour most explicitly con- 
demned. 

I find the whole temper and tone of the Review calcu- 
lated to shew their triumph over their opponents, whom they 
thought they had got in their toils. 

If all the orthodox have these feelings, if they support 
and countenance this work and indulge such a spirit, we 
shall for the future understand what orthodoxy means. 
We shall understand it to be a sect, violent in its passions^. 



20 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

intolerant in its principles, and utterly regardless of the 
means by which its purposes are effected. I look upon it, 
that the good and candid of that part y are bound to come 
out openly, and separate themselves, lest they be confound- 
ed with these men who haye undertaken officiously to 
represent them. 

One thing is certain, that if the principles and spirit of 
the Panoplist are to prevail with all whom it professes to 
represent, a new and more dreadful schism must take place 
in the church than has disgraced it for many ages, and the 
cause of religion must suffer, for we never shall abandon, 
through fear of insult and reproach, men the most venerable 
for their piety and virtues. 

I shall now proceed to make a few remarks upon the Re- 
view in the Panoplist, and the letter of the Rev. Samuel 
Worcester, D. D. I shall consider the last work in the 
first instance, partly because the author has evidently the 
best faculty of varnishing over a bad cause, partly because 
he affects, and I am sorry to say (as it appears to me) only 
affects, a superiour degree of moderation ; but chiefly 
because, in considering his defence of the Panoplist, we 
shall naturally be led to examine the merits of that work. 
We shall be mistaken if the honest part of society do not 
say of Dr. Worcester, 

Nee defensoribus istis — tempus eget. 

The professed object of Dr. Worcester is, to defend the 
editors of the Panoplist from the charge of misrepresenta- 
tion, preferred and urged against them by Mr. Channing. 

In common life, that is among laymen, we are very much 
disposed to abhor cunning and prevarication. We think 
that a good cause does not require it, and that a bad one is 
not aided by it. When we see a man adhering to (he letter 
and violating the spirit of any rule y we usually call him a 



©R A CALVINIST..*. 21 

Jesuit. We say that such a man may be a good special 
pleader, an adroit pettifogger, but he is not a fair and hon- 
ourable combatant. In a clergyman such a spirit is consider- 
ed as peculiarly unworthy. To be sure one religious order,, 
which the general indignation of mankind suppressed in the 
last century, was accused of this disposition to subterfuge. 
We should be very much grieved To see Ihe spirit of St. 
Omer's revived in our country, and especially among those 
who style themselves pre-eminently the saints. 

That Dr. Worcester has attempted to obtain an unworthy 
triumph over Mr. Channing, on the ground of mere verbal 
criticism, that he has either misunderstood or misrepresented 
the general spirit of the Panoplist review, we think will be 
obvious to all who shall attend to our remarks. 

The Panoplist does mean to convey the idea, that that 
portion of the clergy and of liberal christians in our country, 
who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, are chargeable with 
all the opinions which Mr. Belshara and the English Uni- 
tarians hold. This was the great scope of the work. The 
whole effort of the Reviewers was directed to fix upon 
every man in this country, who differed from the Calvinists 
as to the Unity of the Godhead, all the other peculiar no- 
tions and sentiments which Mr. Belsham maintains. 

Dr. Worcester resists this charge, by calling upon Mr. 
Channing to shew any distinct phrase or paragraph, which 
in itself bears this meaning, and he considers himself as tri- 
umphant, because no one sentence taken by itself will bear 
this construction. 

It is well known that the christian world have been from 
the third century divided on the question of the Trinity. 
At one time the Arians had the majority throughout all the 
christian community, and if it had not been for the powerful 
arguments of fire and fagot, theirs would probably have con- 
tinued to be the prevailing doctrine of christians. The 



„22 ARE Y0U A CHRISTIAN 

Arians denied the doctrine of the Trinity, yet they no mort 
resembled the Socinians in many of their opinions, than the 
Calvinists do the Hopkinsians, or the Papists either of them. 
These facts were well known to the editors of the Pano- 
plist and to Dr. Worcester, but they knew also that they 
were unknown to the greater part of laymen. Hence they 
have both of them, Dr. Worcester full as much as the 
others* attempted to fix upon all that portion of the clergy, 
who are not satisfied with the doctrine of the Trinity, all 
the opinions maintained by Socinus or Mr. Belsham, though 
they knew the greater part were Arians. I say distinctly, 
they must have known that these facts were unknown to 
the great mass of readers, and I am afraid that they were 
not unwilling that they should be led into errour. 

The Arians have the most elevated ideas of Jesus Christ. 
They consider him as a being pre-existent to his appear- 
ance on earth ; that he came down from heaven. Many of 
them believe that he had an agency in the formation of this 
world. In this manner they reconcile some texts of scrip- 
ture which seem to give to the Messiah this exalted 
character. 

The Socinians on the other hand consider him as an 
inspired prophet, but purely human in his origin. 

There is a third class, whom Dr. Worcester ought to 
have known, because his liberal and pious brother is at the 
head of them ; (a man, who for his ingenuousness and gene- 
rous sacrifice of himself in the cause of what he believed 
the truth, is worthy of all praise,) who hold a third opinion ; 
and that is, that our Saviour, though not a part of the God- 
head, is veritably the Son of God. 

It is not within our scope to discuss the merits of either 
of these opinions, but we do say, that, knowing these distinc- 
tions to exist, it was very little short of culpable unfairness, 
both in the editors of the Review and Dr. Worcester, to 
affect to confound them. 



OR A CALVINISM 23 

It is then my design to shew, 

Firstly. That the sentiments of Mr. Belsham are ia 
fact imputed so generally, and with such purposed vague- 
ness, to those the orthodox call the liberal party, as to lead 
ail honest laymen, unacquainted with.these distinctions (that 
is, ninety -nine in an hundred) to believe, that all Unitarians 
agree in all points with Mr. Belsham. 

Secondly. That the Review does charge the ministers, 
who doubt the doctrine?of the Trinity, generally, with base 
and hypocritical concealment of their opinions. 

Thirdly. I shall shew, that Dr. "Worcester himself is 
under a great mistake, or has been guilty of a still greater 
degree of misrepresentation, in regard to the preaching and 
course of conduct of what he calls the liberal clergy. 

I would observe here, before I cite my proofs, that it is as 
unfair in these gentlemen, to attempt to fix on all Unitarians 
every opinion which any one of them professes, as it would 
be to fix on all Trinitarians the doctrines professed by any 
of them. 

Yet Dr. Worcester, by a course of reasoning, if it can 
be dignified with that name, affects to do this. 

He chooses to consider all the Unitarians as one parti/. 
He must have known it to be otherwise. This was not in 
of our view decorous in a man of his profession. 

In page 10 he says, "if among the liberal party such 
" things are done, if some do mutilate the New Testament, 
" &c. if of the rest some more and others less directly con- 
" sent to these things, if as a party or as individuals of the 
" party they bear no decided testimony against these deeds, 
" and do nothing to purge themselves from the guilt of 
" them, then is it not true to say of the party generally 
" that they do these things ? and will they not generally 
" with all who adhere to them be held to answer for them 
" at the bar of the righteous Judge ?" 



24 -^RE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

God forbid that Dr. Worcester, if such are his sentiments, 
should ever be promoted to the office of a temporal or spiri- 
tual judge. A million of men entertain one opinion iu common. 
Nine hundred and ninety thousand of them hold an opinion 
perfectly innocent, but ten thousand of them also maintain 
the most censurable doctrines. The point in which they 
are agreed is either true or harmless. I would impute, says 
the humane Dr. Worcester, to the nine hundred and ninety 
thousand, the detestable doctrines of the ten thousand, which 
they reprobate equally with the rest of the world. 

This is imputation with a vengeance ! 

Let us, however, test the fairness of this reasoning and 
the justice of this accusation by an application to them. 

So far as it respects this particu'ar point in the nature of 
God, the christian world are divided into tiro sects only, 
Trinitarians and Unitarians. 

The former term embraces Catholicks, Lutherans, Cal- 
vinists, and these again are subdivided into fifty sects. 

The latter are divided into Arians, Socinians, and many 
who differ from both. 

Now is it not as reasonable to say to a Calvinistick 
Trinitarian, " Your Trinitarian party (meaning the Catho- 
licks) maintain the doctrine of transubstantiation, of abso- 
lution, of auricular confession. You are therefore accoun- 
table for these opinions." 

How unfair would Dr. Worcester deem it, if we should 
impute to every Trinitarian every absurd opinion maintained 
by those who agree with him in that doctrine. 

Yet on this very flimsy ground, and on this alone, does 
he impute to Mr. Channing and the other clergy, who hold 
the simple doctrine of the Unity of the supreme Being, 
opinions, which he considers the most heinous crimes, which 
in his judgment will condemn them to eternal punishment, 
and which merit the severest human censure. 



OR A CALVINIST? 25 

I would remark in this place, that although I would here 
establish the illiberality and misrepresentation of the editors 
of the Panopiist, it is not because I consider it a reproach 
to any man, honestly to entertain the opinions of Mr. Bel- 
sham. In most of the opinions cited by the Panopiist I 
agree with that Unitarian divine. In some I differ from 
him ; and however it may please the apostolick Dr. 
Worcester to denounce such opinions as guilt, I shall ask 
.for his commission from my Maker and my Saviour before 
I shall allow the validity of his decree. 

Yes. Though a layman, I understand and value my 
religious rights, and in my conscience I have believed ever 
since I have had understanding to discern the truth, 1hat 
the greater part of the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism are 
derogatory to God, in direct contradiction to the doctrines 
taught by our Master ; and though I can never call errour 
guilty I shall always esteem the Calvinistick errours the 
most unfortunate and dishonourable to the christian system, 
of any which the metaphysical subtlety of men has contri- 
ved, or which their pride and party spirit have induced 
them to maintain. But although I consider it no reproach, 
yet both Dr. Worcester and I well know, iha* on many of 
the points in question, a great portion of the Unitarians of 
this country differ as much from Mr. Belsham as they do 
from Dr. Worcester, and in this view the charge was not 
only unfounded but extremely unfair. 

I can easily fancy, that I see these metaphysical dicta- 
tors of our consciences sneering at a layman, i*ho has the 
hardihood to give his opinion about doctrines which they 
will say he does not understand. How can you, Sir, they 
will say, pretend to decide on some of the most abstruse 
points in theology, which it costs us the whole labour of our 
lives to endeavour to comprehend, and even that endeavour 
i§ with many of us unsuccessful ? Such will be the private, 
4 



26 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

if it be not the publick language of these inspired teachers. 
Yet they hold very consistently at the same time, that 
though we laymen cannot understand the merits of these 
questions without much study, though it cost the metaphy- 
sical and able Dr. Edwards the labour of a life to display 
them, yet that every illiterate man is bound to believe them 
on pain of eternal damnation. * 

Never was a doctrine so well calculated to keep the minds 
of men in fetters to ecclesiastical authority. You must be- 
lieve because it is incredible ; the more incomprehensible, 
the more certain its divine origin and its truth. " But I do 
not understand even the terms of the proposition." So 
much the better ; it is a proof the mystery is deeper and 
more holy, and so much the greater your obligation to 
believe. 

Hence it is, we suppose, that some of these Calvinistick 
gentlemen hold human research in such contempt, and aban- 
don the pain and labour of study to their industrious oppo- 
sers, to the seekers after truth, the humble inquirers after 
the religion which Jesus taught. Hence it is, we suppose, 
that we sometimes see them so devoted to worldly inte- 
rests, to the publication of profane books (I use profane in 
contradistinction to sacred) as to render it impracticable 
for them to devote any reasonable portion of time to theo- 
logical research. To such men, to all who are greedy of 

* Q. Where are true churchmen to be found ? 

A. Only in the true church. 

Q. How do you call the true church ? 

A. The holy catholick church. 

Q. Is there any other true church ? 

A. No. As there is but one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one 
God and Father of all, there is but one church. 

Q. Are all obliged to be of the true church ? 

A. Yes, no one can be saved out of it. 
The above, questions and answers are extracted, not from Dr. 
Worcester, but from the eighth edition of the general catechism, 
printed at Dublin, 1811, and revised, enlarged, approved and recom- 
mended, not by the editors of the Panoplist, — but by the four Roman 
Gatholick archbishops of the kingdom of Ireland. 



OR A CALVIN1ST? 27 

sovereign power over the minds of their people, these Cal- 
vinistick doctrines are very convenient. They teach their 
flocks, that human reason is to be discarded in judging of 
sacred things, that it was given us only for our every day 
affairs, but that in things which pertain to our immortal 
souls, and which affect our eternal happiness, it is an in- 
strument to be dreaded, a faculty to be despised.* 

Hence they lay down the Westminster Assembly's con- 
fession of faith as the gospel, and by the aid of a few texts, 
they are enabled to compose what they are pleased to 
style an evangelical discourse ; though its resemblance to 
the New Testament is perhaps its slightest recommendation. 
If a sober, pious, inquiring parishioner should ask them 
to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, the nature and 
character and offices of each member of this singular Union, 
and what was its state when our Saviour was in the tomb 
and before his resurrection ; if they should ask, what Christ 
could mean by praying to his Father, that the bitter cup of 
suffering might pass from him, whether he prayed when he 
knew it was in vain, and whether he prayed to himself 
who was equally God with the Father ; to all these ques- 
tions the only reply would be, it is a mystery. We know 
no more about it than you. But if you do not believe it 
you will be damned, and the editors of the Panoplist and 
Dr. Worcester will sit in judgment upon you. 

The poor man, if his mind is feeble and his spirit very 
obedient, trembles and obeys ; we cannot say believes, for 
belief cannot be affirmed of any thing which is not clearly 
and fully understood. 

Far different and more arduous is the task of those pas- 
tors and teachers, who hold their hearers to be reasonable 
creatures, and that the noblest faculty which God has given 

* " When once the doctrine is adopted, that reason is not to be 
exercised in matters of religion, it becomes almost a point of duty to 
be as unreasonable as possible."— Christian Observer, May, 1815, p. 276. 



28 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

to man, is to be employed about the noblest and jnost 
sublime subject. 

These teachers consider it to be their duty, to give to 
every man the "reason of the faith" that is in them. 

They esteem it a sacred obligation to search the scrip- 
tures, to compare ali human systems with them, and to adopt 
these only so far, as after fair and honest and pious research 
they^hali find them supported by the Bible. 

Hence these teachers have a much more laborious task, 
than those who blindly follow Calvin, or any maker of 
creeds. They would consider it a profanation of the desk 
to preach doctrines which they themselves could not under- 
stand. Their sermons, instead of resembling the treatises of 
metaphysical divines, are modelled upon that of our Saviour 
on the mount. They think his example of sufficient authority. 

In the beautiful language of Mr. Channing, "we esteem 
" it a solemn duty to disarm instead of exciting the bad 
" passions of our people. We wish to promote among them 
" a spirit of universal charity. We wish to make them con- 
" demn their own bad practices rather than the erroneous 
" speculations of their neighbour. We love them too sin- 
" cerely to imbue them with the spirit of controversy." 
This is as true as it is christian-like and sublime. We all 
know that this is their mode of preaching, and these their 
motives. 
I mean now to shew, 

1st. That the sentiments of Mr. Belsham are in fact 
in the Panoplist imputed so generally, and with such purpo- 
sed vagueness to those whom the orthodox call the liberal 
party, as to lead all honest laymen, ignorant of the distinc- 
tion between the various sects, to believe, that all Unitari- 
ans agree in all points with Mr. Belsham. 

In the first place, I adopt their own course of reasoning, 
as against themselves. Both the Panoplist and Dr. Wor- 



OR A CALVINIST3 2.9 

c.ester contend, that all the Unitarians are to be considered 
as one party, and are responsible for the opinions and even 
crimes which any of the party commit. 

In page 6, having quoted at large Mr. Belsham's opinions, 
the editors of the Panoplist add, " the foregoing quotations 
are sufficient to give the reader some acquaintance with the 
religious opinions of leading Unitarians." 

The evidence only went to shew the opinion of one Uni- 
tarian. The Panoplist cites it as proof of the opinion of 
more than one of the leading Unitarians. Just below in 
the same page their courage gains ground, and they pro- 
ceed without qualification in the work of misrepresentation. 
" Our readers (say they) will excuse us, if for the sake 
of making a brief summary of doctrines held by Unitarians 
as exhibited in the preceding extracts, we give the sub- 
stance of the several articles by way of recapitulation." 

" Unitarians hold and teach then, That God," &c. &c. 
here inserting Mr. Belsham's creed. 

This in common acceptation, is an insinuation, that all 
Unitarians hold those opinions. Here they dropped the 
word " leading." 

The sarcastick, triumphant manner in which the whole 
subject is introduced, the course of argument adopted, 
such as that they had secretly known, and had often advised 
the publick of what the Boston ministers had studiously 
concealed, that they were at bottom Unitarians, though they 
artfully concealed it from their parishes and the world, but 
that happily for the cause of truth, they had discovered 
the means of bringing this more than popish plot to light ; 
all this course of statement, as it is applied to the Boston 
and other clergy of the liberal party generally, without any 
discrimination, was intended to convey, and does convey 
to the mind of every reader, that they considered it appli- 
cable to all. It was purposely vague, that the suspicion- 



50 ARE Y6U A CHRISTIAN 

might fall upon the whole. Mr. Channing has disappointed 
them. He has proved that a part of what they would im- 
pute to him as guilt, he claims as merit, and that the 
insinuation, the innuendo, that all the liberal clergy hold the 
opinions of Mr. Belsham, is false. 

Do these gentlemen believe, that in order to convict them 
of a libel, it is necessary they should use a precise form of 
words ? Do they believe, they can make insinuations in lan- 
guage purposely obscure, and when put upon their trial, 
escape on the ground of literal variation ? 

What will be said to this phrase ? 

" Such is the Unitarianism which Mr. Belsham wishes to 
propagate, and of which he professes to write the history, 
so far at least as it relates to its progress in this country. 
Of the existence of suck Unitarianism in the metropolis 
of New-England, our readers have been generally well per- 
suaded, but some have not believed that it was making con- 
siderable progress, because they could not persuade them- 
selves that men, occupying important places in church and 
state, and standing high in publick estimation, were capable 
of concealing their true sentiments." 

I do not knOw that Dr. Worcester might not attempt to 
prove that the foregoing sentence did not contain any charge, 
since he could not see even in the Panoplist a charge of 
hypocrisy against the Boston clergy, but I understand the 
above to be an averment, that such Unitarianism as Mr. 
Belsham wished to propagate, and contained in the summa- 
ry above cited by the Panoplist, was the same with that 
held by all the men in church and state in Massachusetts, 
(who were Unitarians at all) and that they concealed, from 
a sense of guilt and shame, their opinions from the publick. 

Such any fair jury would say was the meaning of the 
sentence. Such Mr. Channing thought it to be, and supposed 
it included him and his brethren. Such it was intended to 



OR A CALVINIST ? 31 

"be, as I shall prove, and such Dr. Worcester ought to have 
supposed to be its meaning. 

In the 2d page of the Panoplist Review the term Boston 
*' and its vicinity" is used in such a manner as fairly to 
bear out Mr. Channing's inference. Nay, it would lead 
foreigners, and citizens unacquainted with the facts, to con- 
sider the whole town and vicinity Unitarians of Mr. Bel- 
sham's sort. 

So much so, that if any Boston minister, however ortho- 
dox, should travel without a passport from the faithful, he 
would be in danger of being confounded with the hereticks. 

" The pamphlet before us (say the editors) furnishes 
most decisive evidence on the subject of the state of reli- 
gion in Boston and the vicinity. It is evidence which can 
neither be evaded or resisted by the liberal party." 

We now introduce one of the passages quoted by Mr. 
Channing. " We shall feel ourselves (say the Reviewers) 
warranted hereafter in saying that TJnitarianism is the pre*- 
dominant religion among the ministers and churches of 
Boston." 

On this sentence the Rev. Dr. Worcester with wonderful 
shrewdness remarks, 1st. that this does not include the 
vicinity. But the other one I quoted above, did. 2d. It 
did not include the "great body of liberal christians." 
But it included the ministers of Boston and their churches ; 
nay, its fair signification is, that the greater part of all the 
churches were Unitarians, and the sentence I have quoted 
did include the liberal party. And, 3dly, he says, it does 
not say that they were Unitarians in " Belsham's sense of 
the word." 

But I have shown above, that in many other passages to 
the American Unitarians generally are imputed Belsham'a 
opinions ; so then, if in any one sentence all the proposi- 
tions cannot be found, our metaphysical divine cannot find 



32 -*RE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

(he assertion supported. To such a mind we can readily 
forgive any errours founded on metaphysical or scholastick 
subtleties. There is one other evasion which the Rev. Dr. 
Worcester invents for the word predominant, which I notice 
for other purposes. He says that it might have meant pre- 
dominant in " influence," having the " most prominent 
characters" for supporters. There are two sentences in 
which this word is used by the Reviewer. The other one 
is, " We feel entirely warranted in saying, that the pre- 
dominant religion of the libera] party is decidedly Unitarian 
in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word." Is there a man of 
plain sense who believes that the Reviewers meant thence 
simply to assert that the men of influence, the men who have 
the care of the college, alone, were Unitarians in Mr. Bel- 
sham's sense of the word, or did they mean that it was the 
prevailing sentiment, the sentiment of the greatest number ? 
Surely the latter is the fair construction ; but this construc- 
tion was introduced, I fear, for the purpose for which, in too 
many orthodox publications, the same sentiment is inserted, 
to play off the passions and jealousies of the uninformed 
classes of citizens against the higher. Gentlemen, you take 
this course frequently. You are provoked that so vast a pro- 
portion of the opulent, well-informed classes of society are 
scriptural christians, and reject the creeds of the dark ages, 
the shreds and patches left upon our religion by the first 
reformers, and you wish to render them objects of jealousy. 
You may succeed in this game. You have, we well know, 
the long end of the lever. The multitude will finally govern ; 
but recollect, that in pulling down scriptural Christianity, 
in revenging yourselves upon us for rejecting your authority 
and preferring that of Christ, you run some hazard of being 
pulled down yourselves. Some of the best friends, and the 
most staunch supporters of Christianity are among those 
whom you attack. Infidelity is the prevailing profession of 



0R A CALVINIST? 33 

the statesmen of the south. The populace in times of 
turbulence soon pass from orthodoxy and fanaticism to incre- 
dulity, and you may regret too late, that you alienated the 
affections of those who were willing and able to aid and 
sustain you, while you lost your influence with the other 
classes. I shall say something more on the causes of the 
late unusual awakening and zeal, and this dreadful appre- 
hension of danger to the church, in the close. I shall sug- 
gest some of the true sources of this clamour, and shall 
render it probable, that if two or three turbulent and in- 
triguing men had not been encouraged, the harmony of the 
church would not have been interrupted. To return to our 
question. 

The best proof and the conclusive one against the Pano- 
plist editors, is the judgment which they pass on themselves. 
Their conscience smote them, and it is astonishing to me 
that Dr. Worcester did not see that his defence was offi- 
cious. They never mean to deny, and they never can 
deny, that they imputed to the whole liberal party, in town 
and out of town, men of influence and men without it, min- 
isters and people, the opinions of Mr. Belsham. In page 
27 they say, they are aware they shall be accused of unfair- 
ness in imputing to the liberal party " the extravagant 
opinions of Mr. Belsham." But they justify it. They go 
on to argue on the honourable nature of Mr. Wells' stand- 
ing and character, and his consequent authority. 

This is a perfect admission, not that they were unfair, but 
that they did so impute the opinions of Mr. Belsham to 
the liberal party. 

Now what have we proved that the Panoplist asserted ? 

1st. That Mr. Belsham's opinions are those of " leading 
Unitarians. " 

2d. That they are the opinions of " Unitarians" without 
qualification. ^ 



34 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

3d. That " Unitarians" hold all the opinions which the 
Panoplist selects from Mr. Belsham's creed. 

4th. That the Unitarianism which has been secretly 
spreading in Boston, and of which they had often warned 
their readers, that which was held by men distinguished in 
church and state was " such Unitarianism" as Mr, 
Belsham's. 

5th. That Mr. Belsham's book applies to the " state of 
religion in Boston and its vicinity." 

6th. That Unitarianism (which we have shewn they had 
before defined to be Mr. Belsham's) was the predominant 
religion of the ministers and churches of Boston. 

7th. That the predominant religion of the liberal party 
is decidedly Unitarian in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word. 

And lastly, they implicitly admit, that they did charge the 
liberal party with holding Mr. Belsham's opinions, and jus- 
tify it. 

Let ns now see, whether the whole of Mr. Channing's 
assertion in his first proposition, and especially the one I 
advanced, is not supported ; viz. that the Panoplist asserts, 
that the ministers of this town and its vicinity, and the great 
body of liberal christians, are Unitarians in Mr. Belsham's 
sense of the word. 

Dr. Worcester not only has failed to defend them suc- 
cessfully on this point, but he has most unhappily plunged 
himself into the same difficulty, by justifying in one line what 
he denied to exist in a preceding one. 

It is where he defends this malicious sentence of the 
Panoplist, " the liberal party mutilate the New-Testament, 
reject nearly all t]je fundamental doctrines of the gospel, 
and degrade the Saviour to the condition of a fallible, pec- 
cable, and ignorant man." 

Dr. Worcester first attempts to shew, that it does not 
mean the whole party ; that the whole is sometimes used for 



OR A CALV1N1ST? $5 

a part, that it was therefore wrong in Mr. Channing to apply 
it to all of them. He has scarcely finished this piece of 
fine reasoning, before he proceeds in three long pages to 
shew, that every one of the party are liable for the deeds 
of every other one ! That the Reviewers had a right to 
consider Belsham's opinions as applying to all Unitari- 
ans since he spoke in the name of all ; thus the doctor ex- 
hibits a new species of reasoning. He denies a fact, sup- 
ports his denial with much argument, and then proceeds to 
justify that fact as an acknowledged and admitted one. 

The Calvinists certainly will do us a favour by selecting 
Dr. Worcester as their advocate, but we sincerely rejoice 
that he is not on our side of the question : we could not 
stand such a defence, though we fear no attack from any 
quarter. 

The second point is, " Did the Reviewers in the Pano- 
plist charge the clergy or ministers, who doubt the doctrine 
of the Trinity, with base and hypocritical concealment of 
their opinions ?" 

Here Dr. Worcester is a little more cautious. He deals 
in general denial, he brings forward but one passage, which 
I shall examine : But he does make one or two assertions 
that astonish me. One is, that of all the quotations made 
by Mr. Channing, he thinks "he may safely assert there is 
not one sentence or scrap of a sentence which appears in 
the letter of Mr. Channing, with the same aspect and 
bearing as in the Review." This charge, if true, goes 
deeply to the moral character of Mr. Channing ; but it is 
utterly unfounded. 

It will appear to be one of the most singular mistakes or 
misrepresentations by clerk or layman. It is distressing to 
be obliged to apply such expressions to a divine, but if a 
man will fight with poisoned arrows, he must expect to be 
treated as out of the pale of civilized warfare. The facts 



36 AR E YOU A CHRISTIAN 

I am now about to state, and the exposition which I ara 
about to present, will be thought to bear still harder on the 
fairness of Dr. Worcester as a theological combatant. 

If that reverend gentleman intended, in the manner of 
some of the subtleties I have so fully detected above, to 
justify his assertion by saying, that after these sentences 
and scraps of sentences were transferred to Mr. Channing's 
letter, they did not stand in the same typographical order 
or relation to each other, and to the context in the Pano- 
plist, let him enjoy his triumph, such as it would be. 
But if he meant, as he did, to convey the idea, that those 
sentences, and parts of sentences, were not correctly appled 
by Mr. Channing, I shall prove it to be otherwise. 

The " aspect and bearing," and the only " aspect and 
bearing" which they have in Mr. Channing's letter, are 
expressed in three short words, " We are accused ;" and if 
we examine the text which was the occasion of introducing 
this note, we shall find, that the persons to whom Mr. Chan- 
ning refers as accused, are the ministers of Boston and the 
vicinity, and others of the liberal party. Now if the minis- 
ters of Boston are distinctly accused of all the things stated 
in the extracts, then the aspect and bearing are the same 
in Mr. Channing's letter as in the Review, for they are a 
part of the persons accused, and a part stand for the whole. 
See Dr. Worcester and the Panoplist passim. 

We are accused, says Mr. Channing, of the " syste- 
matical practice of artifice." In page 2d of the new edition 
of the Review, there is the paragraph cited below. I shall 
in every instance give the whole context in order to convict 
the reverend Dr. the more fully. After asserting that the 
editors of the Panoplist had long known and often apprized 
the christian world of this dark secret, Unitarian defection, 
they say, " But as the work of errour was carried on for 
the most part in secret, as many well-meaning people were 



■ \ 

OR A CALVINIST? 3? 

led in the dark, and as proselytes were made principally 
by suppressing truth, rather than by explicitly proposing 
and defending errour, it was a difficult matter so to expose 
the evil, as to present its character, extent and design in 
full view, before the eyes of its friends and enemies. " [Here 
follows the clause selected by Mr. Channing.] " It has 
" been an artifice practised systematically by a majority 
" of the clergymen who have led the way in this apostasy 
" from the faith of the Protestant churches, and (as we 
" believe we may safely add) in this apostasy from chris- 
" tianity, to inculcate the opinion, that they did not differ 
" maferially from their clerical brethren through the coun- 
" try." 

Now we ask whether the words, " artifice practised syste- 
matically," taken in connexion with the rest of the Pano- 
plist and with the contrast of the word country, do not 
apply to the Boston clergy. Whether they are not as clear 
as if they had named Lathrop and Channing, and Thacher, 
and others ? There are but two evasions I can think of. 
One is, that Mr. Channing says, " we are accused of the 
systematical practice of artifice," and the Review only says, 
" an artifice practised systematically." 

To be sure, laymen would call this a quibble, but as 
it is in character with some other parts of Dr. Worcester's 
letter, and as it is on such verbal niceties that many of the 
Calvinistick errours repose, I should not be surprised to 
see him resort to it. 

It may also be said, that the Reviewers do not accuse all 
the Boston clergy, nor even all who have led the way in this 
pretended apostasy ; neither does Mr. Channing say they 
did. He only says, " we are accused," and surely all the 
Anti-Trinitarian clergymen are accused, except Dr. Free- 
man, who is praised, and who alone is praised, for his 
openness. 



38 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

Case 2d. We are accused, says Mr. Channing, of " hy- 
pocritical concealment." In the first place, in page 7, new 
edition, the Panoplist says, that their readers had long been 
apprized of the existence of such Unitarianism (which I 
have proved to be Belsham's) in the metropolis of New- 
England, (this fixes the locality) " but some have not be- 
lieved (they add) that it was making considerable progress, 
because they could not persuade themselves that men, 
occupying important places in church and state, and stand- 
ing high in publick estimation, were capable of concealing 
their true sentiments." This is only, I admit, very broad 
insinuation, but it serves to connect other charges, by shew- 
ing that they were designed to apply to the Boston clergy. 
I dare say the doctor would justify this species of calum- 
ny, by saying, that it makes no assertion. 

In page 10, the Reviewers say, that Belsham has shewn 
us, not that he has merely asserted it, " that many of his 
order in our country would have one religion for the vulgar 
and another for the wise, that it is a fundamental maxim 
among the great body of leading Unitarians here not to 
expose their sentiments directly to the inspection of the 
wcrld at large, and to challenge investigation, but to 
operate in secret." 

I introduce this to shew the same general design, and 
also that the charge is made against the whole body. 

All these extracts are produced as introductory to the 
following in page 11, speaking of the society in Tremont 
street (King's chapel.) We must say (say the Review- 
ers) that the conduct of this society and of their minister, 
in coming out openly and avowing their sentiments to the 
world, is vastly preferable to an hypocritical concealment 
of them. 

This is a slander by innuendo. It means that other socie- 
ties did hypocritically conceal. But the Rev. Dr. Wor-* 



OR A CALVINIST? 39 

tester triumphs here. He says, there is not a direct charge. 
He quotes it as far as I have now done ; but who will ever 
believe without consulting the book, that this divine, who 
charges his brother Channing with mutilation, took%this ex- 
tract and left the words which immediately follow ? " Had 
other societies followed their example, we should long since 
have known with whom we were contending, and not have 
been obliged to guard against ambushes instead of combat- 
ing in the open field. " Which those other societies were, 
is made known by the above extracts from pages 7 and 10, 
and from the whole tenour of the Review. The other 
societies in Boston, who are not Trinitarian in their senti- 
ments, are then charged wi(h " hypocritical concealment," 
and a fortiori their pastors are so charged, who are more 
than ten times distinctly noticed in the Review. 

Case 3d. We are accused of " cowardice in the con- 
cealment of our opinions," " of cunning and dishonesty," 
" of acting in a base hypocritical manner, a manner at which 
common honesty revolts ;" " a manner incompatible with 
fidelity and integrity." 

I put all these distinct cases together, because they are 
supported by the same evidence. 

Speaking of Mr. Wells's letter, page 20, the Reviewers 
say, that his apology for his cautious brethren, sufficiently 
indicates his views of their conduct in regard to their pub- 
lick teaching. This shews of whom they considered him 
to be speaking, that they were ministers, publick teachers. 
They then proceed, " Thus it is, and thus it has been for 
years. Knowing that the cold skepticism of Socinianism 
cannot satisfy the wants nor alleviate the woes of plain 
common sense people, its advocates in general have not 
dared to be open, (here is the cowardice.) They have clan- 
destinely crept into orthodox churches by forbearing to 
contradict their faith, (this shews who are intended — that it 



40 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

is the clergy) and then gradually moulded them by their 
negative preaching, to the shape they would wish." In 
the same paragraph and in the same allusion, again, " Who 
does not see that there is great cunning, and that there is 
great policy in all this. [Here the charge of cunning is 
advanced.] "But then, the honesty! That is another 
matter. Did the holy apostles act in this manner when 
they preached to Jews and heathens ? Did they teach by 
negatives ? [This shews they mean the persons above 
referred to.] Let those blush, who profess to follow the 
apostles, and yet behave in this base, hypocritical manner. 
Common honesty revolts at it. The idea, that a minister 
believes the truths of the gospel to be of infinite importance, 
and still conceals them, is incompatible either with fidelity 
or integrity." 

It makes one blush, to feel obliged to prove so self-evi- 
dent a proposition, as that these charges were made against 
Mr. Channing and the Boston clergy. It makes us blush 
still deeper, to find any persons with the christian name 
capable of writing such language ; and we shudder when we 
perceive that any man could affect to doubt their intended 
application. 

But if Dr. Worcester had confined himself simply to a 
denial of the charge, if he had even gone no farther than to 
charge Mr. Channing with false and unfair quotations, he 
would not have sunk so much in our esteem. But there is 
an affectation of fairness, and of sentiment, and tenderness, 
which doubles his condemnation. He says, that when he 
read these extracts in Mr. Channing's letter, he was excited 
in regard to the Reviewer, [meaning that he felt angry] and 
he was surprised, that he had not felt the same excitement 
when he first read them in the Review. This is a stroke 
of art, first, to make the reader believe his candour, and 
that he should have felt very indignant at such charges .; 



OR A CALVINIST? 41 

secondly, To heighten the belief, that the passages in their 
natural connexion bore no such meaning. 

Now what shall we say, when we see that they have the 
same aspect and bearing in the Review, as Mr. Channing 
stated them to have? — That his assertion was strictly, lite- 
rally, and technically true, true in the most rigid construc- 
tion of law and language, true to learned and true to vulgar 
apprehension in the hidden and the obvious meaning ? 

But this is not the worst of the case for Dr. Worcester. 
He stands self-accused. By saying, that he felt excited, or 
angry, at the accusations of the Panoplist as stated by Mr. 
Channing, he implicitly admits them to be calumnies, rea- 
sonable causes of offence ; and yet this very consistent de- 
fender, who felt abhorrent at such suggestions, and denies 
that the Panoplist made those charges, in the aspect and 
bearing stated by Mr. Channing, advances in substance the 
same charges, and seems astonished that Mr. Channing 
should have felt indignant at them. Let us furnish our 
proofs. 

In page 17 he attempts to shew, that the same charges 
of hypocritical concealment are true, he first cites the 
authority of Mr. Freeman, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Belsham, 
and then adds, " you must be apprised that the opinion 
[that they concealed their sentiments, and temporized] was 
very extensively prevalent, prevalent not only among your 
adversaries, but also among your friends* Hundreds and 
hundreds of times have I heard it from various quarters, and 
never have I heard, as I recollect, the truth of it denied or 
called in question.'' 

Again. " I did suppose, that you and your libera] 
brethren held it as a maxim, that a degree of reserve and 
concealment, greater or less according to circumstances, was 
prudent, and justifiable, and praiseworthy. " 
6 



42 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

And pray, if Dr. Worcester believed all this of them, if 
he really thought them hypocrites and afraid to avow their 
opinions, why was he excited against the Panoplist, whea 
he saw the charges collected by Mr. Channing ? 

Will he say, that he did not look upon concealment as 
any offence, or any breach of duty 1 He goes on to de- 
scribe this failure of openness to be the greatest degree of 
infidelity to God and Christ. 

I shall now say a word or two on the third proposition, 
that the Rev. Dr. Worcester has either mistaken or mis- 
represented the course of preaching, which Mr. Channing 
stated, and most clearly stated, to be that of himself and 
friends. Dr. Worcester, in page 22, chooses to understand 
Mr. Channing as saying, that he did not introduce ani) great 
Controversial points into his discourses. 

Mr. Channing's words, cited at length, and not garbled 
and mutilated, have a very different " aspect and bearing." 
" As to that very small part of our hearers, says he, who 
are attached to the doctrine of the Trinity, while we have 
not wished to conceal from them our difference of opinion, 
we have been fully satisfied, that the most effectual method 
of promoting their holiness and salvation, was to urge on 
triem those great truths and precepts about which there is 
little contention, and which have an immediate bearing on 
the temper and life." 

A more delightful and rational rule could not, one would 
think, be adopted. 

What is Dr. Worcester's course as to this sentence ? He 
says, there has been great contention about all the great 
truths of Christianity, and therefore against the positive de- 
claration of Mr. Channing, that he does urge certain great 
truths of the gospel, Dr. Worcester makes the following 
enumeration. " The doctrines concerning the Saviour's 
persoa and character, his priesthood and atonement, his 



OR A CALVINIST? 43 

offices and work ; the doctrines concerning the moral state 
of mankind, regeneration by the holy spirit, justification by 
faith, pardon and eternal salvation through the merits of the 
one Mediator, the resurrection of the body, and the final 
judgment, " the everlasting destruction of those that obey 
not the gospel," are subjects of continual and earnest con- 
tention among those who profess themselves christians. 
These doctrines then, according to your own representation, 
you and your liberal brethren refrain from bringing into dis- 
cussion before your hearers." 

This is the last and worst quotation I shall make from 
Dr. Worcester. He affects to believe, that Mr. Channing 
admitted, that he never preached concerning the person, 
character and works of our Saviour, nor the moral state of 
mankind, nor the doctrines of pardon, nor eternal salvation, 
nor the resurrection, nor the final judgment ! ! ! 

Did he believe it to be so ? Even charity can scarcely 
admit it. Such a course of argument would merit a fine 
or degradation in a Sophomore, but in a minister of Christ, 
what are we to say of it ? Is it to be understood, that the 
orthodox clergy generally approve of measures, at which all 
men of sentiment revolt ? 

I can only say, that if any religion or any doctrines per- 
mit or allow of such proceedings, it is a sufficient reason for 
rejecting them. 

Our disposition to fairness induces us to say, that we 
have no doubt that the Rev. Dr. Worcester had, in the 
passage to which we refer, a mental reservation, which 
entirely reconciled this representation of Mr. Channing's 
preaching to his own conscience. It is however melan- 
choly to reflect, that theological controvertists often 
have recourse to measures, which appear to laymen 
who consider a God of truth as an enemy to subterfuge, 
very improper. The doctor will doubtless say, "have 



44 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

there not been violent contentions as to the "nature, 
" extent, and degree of future punishments, and the time 
" and manner of final judgment 1 Had I not a meta- 
" physical and abstract right then to say, though I did not 
" believe, that Mr. Channing omitted these points ?" I 
answer without hesitation. No, Sir, you had no right to 
make an inference which you did not believe to be true. 
Neither you, nor any man in Christendom could believe, that 
the Boston clergy omit to urge on their hearers the doc- 
trines of final judgment, and punishment. You might pre- 
sume from what Mr.Channing said, that they did not enter on 
this doctrine of purgatory, and the specifick nature, extent 
and duration of punishments at the last day, but neither you 
nor any one of your brethren, ever believed that they refrain- 
ed from teaching their hearers, that there would be a day of 
final judgment, in which men would receive a sentence 
according to their deeds. 

If the liberal clergy have not arrayed the Deity in all the 
terrours which suit the gloomy imaginations of some men, 
they have not been wanting in representing him as a just 
being, delighting in the virtue of his creatures, and justly 
offended with their vices, and that his rewards and punish- 
ments would be proportional to their conduct in this life. 
God grant, that at that solemn day, all those who have been 
so forward in censuring others may be able to render as 
good an account of their stewardship, as those whom they 
have rashly accused. 

I have now completed the design which I had originally 
in view ; which was, to place in alto relievo, in a prominent 
light, the calumnies of the editors of the Panoplist. I am 
not certain that those gentlemen will not thank us, for proving 
their true meaning and design against the defence of Dr. 
Worcester. 



OR A CALV1NIST? 45 

I shall make a few remarks on various miscellaneous 
heads, all connected with this grand bill of presentment, 
which the exclusive saints have made against the great 
body of hereticks, called liberal christians, before that 
venerable tribunal, the mob, in a language and temper just 
suited to their court. 

THE MOTIVE FOR THIS ATTACK OF THE PANOPLIST, 
AND ITS CONSISTENCY. 

That in a free country every man has a right to address 
the people on any topick, which he may think useful, can- 
not be questioned. He has a strict legal right also to mani- 
fest in himself a most diabolical, revengeful temper, and he 
can escape punishment, if he will make his accusations so 
vague, as that no individual can prove himself dis- 
tinctly charged with a moral or legal offence. As in our 
country it is no crime and scarcely a disgrace, to entertain 
opinions on religious subjects differing from the majority, 
so there is no remedy, when any malicious writer shall 
under cover of the press, charge persons with opinions 
which they do not profess, or misrepresent and mistake 
those which they do. But though such slanderers can 
escape what they deserve, without question, judicial punish- 
ment, yet there are tribunals of a higher kind, both human 
and divine, which they never will escape. 

There is a moral court, erected in the breasts of all men 
of common honesty, to which they are answerable. To this 
court I appeal, in behalf of those venerated men, who have 
been shamefully abused. 

What authority has Dr. Morse, or Dr. Worcester, or Mr. 
Evarts, or* any body else, over Mr. Channing, and Mr. 
Thacher, and Mr. Lowell, and their parishioners ? Is there 
any ecclesiastical power in our State confided to them, when 
both pastor and people agree ? We know there is not. But 



46 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

it is urged, that on so solemn a subject the duty of apostles 
is paramount to human laws, and that St. Morse, St. Evarts, 
and St. Worcester, reinvested with the power of the Holy 
Spirit, which descended on St. Paul and St. Peter, are 
bound to mount the apostolick chair and excommunicate the 
iiere ticks. Grant it. It may soon be too dangerous to 
deny the authority of these apostles. But it must be ad- 
mitted, that the glory of God and the advancement of true 
religion ought to be not only the motive, but the end 
proposed. 

It appears to me then that the editors of the Panoplist 
Review most apparently had neither. 

In the first place, its temper is so bitter, so full of sarcasm 
and levity, that it could not have proceeded from a pure 
desire to promote the cause of Christ. 

In the second place, it was inconsistent ; for if these 
Anti-Trinitarian clergymen had been so ashamed or afraid 
of their opinions, as to conceal them studiously from their 
parishes, as the Panoplist contends, the doctrines could 
spread but very slowly, and it was a proof, that those who 
held them were not eager to make proselytes. 

It seems to shew at least, what Mr. Channing asserts, 
that though their researches led them to reject the Calvinis- 
tick doctrine, ' they did not think it necessary to direct 
their publick instructions against these specifick errours ; 
as not involving questions essential, however important. 
Now to attack these gentlemen, who, as the Reviewers 
allege, studiously concealed their opinions ; to attempt to 
create a popular impression, that their forbearance on these 
controverted points is a heinous crime, and thus lay men of 
their learning and talents under the necessity of defending 
their alleged heresy, and shewing it to be the real gospel, 
could not fail to *x(end the opinions, which, according to 
ihese accusers of he brethren, ought to be reprobated and 



OR ? A GALVINIST ? A7 

dreaded ; and it shews, that every thing but truth was the 
object those zealots for orthodoxy. 

The gentlemen of this school talk much about their 
openness. They would have it believed, that they are as 
much more disinterested and honest in religion, than the 
class of temperate theologians, as they are more forward, 
and dogmatical, and denouncing. This is claiming too 
much in all reason, considering how many interested and 
natural, if not criminal feelings, may be gratified by this 
vaunted openness. I have no doubt, there are in the 
ranks of the party, persons of amiable or timid character, 
whom it costs some struggle with their disposition, and 
perhaps their conviction, to dogmatize and rail at the bitter 
rate demanded by the leaders and whippers in of the sect. 
But with respect to others, especially of the prominent 
sort, the sacrifice would be in suppressing, rather than in 
publishing their peculiar creed. Shall partisans and cham- 
pions of a creed and sect, who claim exclusive posses- 
sion of the truth, who think the distinctions between 
themselves and others essential, who are able to avenge 
themselves in this world on those who dissent from them, 
by holding t\em forth to the multitude, and fixing the 
brand of heresy upon them, and who profess to expect to 
be avenged by the final Judge at the last day, think much 
of raising their standard, and boast of their openness ? Hav- 
ing a majority in numbers at least with them, deriving con- 
sideration and influence, places in publick seminaries, and 
pulpits, from their sectarian peculiarities, it does not seem 
to require any great portion of the spirit of martyrdom to- 
proclaim their faith most loudly. 

A SMALL BLUNDER OP THE PANOPLIST. 

The truth will somtimes force its way through lips the 
least disposed to its utterance. Take for example thte 
unfortunate sentence of the Panopiist. 



43 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

Speaking of the Anti-Trinitarian, or scriptural clergy, 
who, as they pretend, have gradually by " negative preach- 
ing" (1 use their very words) moulded their people to the 
shape they would wish," [a pretty singular mode, it must be 
admitted, of moulding men's minds by negative preaching,] 

They add, 

" The people after a while, (by the means of this nega- 
tive preaching, which means silence as you will see) never 
hearing of atonement, nor of special grace, or the kindred 
doctrines, forget that they belong to the christian system, 
and by and by regard as a kind of enthusiast or monster a 
man who preaches these doctrines." These are the very 
words in their true bearing. 

Is this the Panoplist ? Do my eyes deceive me ? Your 
enemies never said any thing so bad of those doctrines. 
" The liberal clergy creep silently into orthodox churches^ 
" preach negatively (that is, are silent) on certain contro- 
" verted points, the good seed is soon lost, and simply by 
" not hearing these doctrines, for some time, (that is, " after 
" a while") when they hear them anew they are shocked 
" at them, and consider the man who utters them a mon- 
« ster ! ! !" 

God forbid that your doctrines should be so bad, gentle- 
men. God forbid that you should denounce such men as 
Channing, for disbelieving doctrines, which, you say, even 
orthodox churches, after a short interruption, receive with 
horrour and disgust. 

I do not cite this as affording a triumph. It is a noble sen- 
timent and true. It is a generous and ingenuous confession. 

I declare to you, honestly, as a layman, there is nothing, 
as you justly observe, that so soon bristles my hair with 
horrour as some of the doctrines maintained by the orthodox* 



OR A CALVINIST ,? 49 



THE REMARK OF THE PANOPLIST, SO TRULY APOSTOLICK, 
THAT THE "UNITARIANS PRAISE ONE ANOTHER." 

I do not wonder that they are so partial to this sally of 
wit, it has all the qualities of this production of Attica, ex- 
cept brevity. It is so rare a quality too among the 
orthodox ! and it is so precisely suited to the solemnity 
and awful nature of such a subject ! 

I was convinced, last summer, when the same writer 
caught this idea, and run it down through several octavo 
pages, that he valued it too much to let it sink into oblivion. 
I had no doubt, that, like the murdered Starrett, it would 
" re-appear." I am not mistaken ; and much as I pity the 
temper of the editors of the Panoplist, I have yet so much 
of a christian spirit, that I would not willingly deprive them 
of the pleasure of repeating this truly Attick jest every 
year, if I did not owe something to truth. 

It is admitted, that certain men who agree in denying the 
truth or the importance of a particular dogma, and in the 
excellence of a catholick spirit, do praise one another. 

To make this a reproach, (and if it is not a reproach it 
should not have been introduced, for it cannot be believed 
that on so solemn a question, as that of the Unity of the 
supreme God, orthodox men would indulge in ridicule and 
levity, and wit,) if it be a serious reproach, it should have 
been accompanied with the proof, that the persons charged 
denied this praise to others, or that those who were praised, 
were undeserving of it. 

I do not see that any due praise is withheld from the 
orthodox party. I presume they do not expect us to allow 
that the superiour learning, or fairness, or candour of 
some, whom they put forward, is the ground of their selec- 
tion. Full credit is given by us to the learning and cha- 
racter of the Calvinists. They do not, I conceive, insist, 
7 



50 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

that their peculiar sentiments shall be acknowledged as the 
result of their pre-eminent spirit of research, or acquaint- 
ance with sacred literature ; neither can we feel obliged to 
consider their intolerance and censoriousness the effect of 
their piety and benevolence. I think it quite enough in 
favour of the best of those persons, who promote division, 
and awaken hateful passions against honest men for being 
honest, and preferring the Bible to a formula, to allow their 
anathematizing spirit to be consistent with virtue, but not 
to be a part of it. With regard to others, they cannot 
claim more charity than they give. 

As to learning, we do not deny the metaphysical powers 
of Edwards and Hopkins, and the ingenuity of Dr. Em- 
mons ; and do not dispute the reputed or known abilities 
of the Andover professors — but that critical learning, which 
is applicable to the interpretation of the scriptures, and that 
literature, which serves to illustrate and adorn religious and 
moral truth, as is well known, has been in very little repute 
among the high Calvinists in this part of the country. A 
regard to the credit and influence of the sect, and the effect 
of their institution, is doubtless causing a change in this 
respect, and will probably cause an abatement of their 
bigotry. On the other hand, will it be denied that the 
praise bestowed on the Unitarians is well deserved ? Will 
any man question the personal virtue of such men as La- 
throp, Channing, Thacher, and the great body of the liberal 
clergy ? 

Our country is too much given to self-commendation I 
admit. But when the orthodox shall produce such works 
as the writings of Belknap, or the sermons of Clarke, and 
Buckminster, and Freeman, and so much learning as is 
found in Everett's answer to English, we will admit that 
they are as much entitled to praise. At present we cannot 
compare Morse's Geographical works, or his sermons, such. 



OR A CALVINIST? 51 

as we have seen of them, or even Dr. Worcester's letter, 
with those respectable productions of our country. 

But as to this habit of praising one another, you are ex- 
tremely disingenuous in not feeling and acknowledging the 
motive. It is to bear up these victims of your vengeance 
against your slanders, that such things are said. You are 
the majority. With all the insolence of conscious strength, 
and with the malignity of enemies, you are assailing, not their 
opinions and christian standing only, but their probity in 
the discharge of their function ; and when a friend is indu- 
ced by your calumnies to speak of them with respect, 
you call it praise. 

How consistent is this course in men, who arrogate to 
themselves en masse all the Christianity and all the virtue 
in the country ! ! How consistent in men, who sometimes 
promote to offices of the highest honour those whom they 
themselves despise, and whom the publick have long since 
condemned. Let us then hear no more on the subject of the 
self praise of the Unitarians, until you are prepared to 
shew that it is ill-deserved. I can see no reason why I 
should not praise a learned man, because he happens to 
agree with me, in a doctrine, upon which men of sense, in alj 
ages, where there was freedom of opinion, have been found 
prone to agree. 

HARVARD COLLEGE. 

A large proportion of the Review in the Panoplist is de- 
voted to an attempt to render odious the officers of this 
institution, and to withdraw from it the confidence of the 
publick. Aware, however, of the hold it has upon the affec- 
tions of the people, they have thought it necessary to pro- 
fess a regard for it. 

This is, in truth, rather suspicious. The reputed editors 
of the Panoplist, and authors of the Review, are Alumni of 



52 A** 2 YOU A CHRISTIAN 

other colleges, and one or more of them sent into this state, 
for the purpose of punishing and pursuing the college for 
refusing to become sectarian. It is remarkable, that almost 
all the sons of our Alma Mater should be so outdone in filial 
respect and tenderness by these strangers, whom she 
never knew ! This foreign patriotism, however popular 
in our country, is attended with some inconveniences. I 
wish these volunteers in supplying the defects of our mother's, 
own children, had a little different way of shewing their 
regard. They love her so well, that if she will only give 
herself up to their views, and cease to consider the peculiar 
dogmas of their creed as subjects of inquiry and discussion, 
but will declare them to be first principles, and suffer no 
liberty upon these points to any of her officers, they will 
admit, that she is as great a blessing to the publick, as she 
was in good old times ! These generous keepers of their 
neighbour's vineyard would have it thought, that there is a 
great change in the theological character of the college, that 
is, of its superintendents and officers, within the last twenty 
years. Every one knows, that for sixty years, at least, 
this institution has been distinguished as the temperate re- 
gion of theology ; that the five points, and other points of 
violent theorists and zealots for orthodoxy, have never been 
inculcated, and that the Calvinists and Hopkinsians have 
always considered Harvard College as a place, where a man, 
instructer or pupil, might refuse to wear their badges with- 
out any forfeiture of reputation or influence. 

The Panoplist editors and Reviewers admit, that the col- 
lege has been, in many points of view, the pride and glory 
of our western world. Its excellent benefactors they allow 
to have been pious men, and they agree, that it has been 
the nursery of a long and illustrious train of civil and reli- 
gious characters. But they omit to state, that the liberal 
Hollises are amongst its benefactors ; that Mr. Adams, the 



OR A CALVINIST? 5g 

president of the United States, and Gore, and Parsons, and 
Ames, and a multitude of others, who are its present, or 
have been its late supporters, are ranked in the class of 
liberal christians. They omit to state, that Clarke, and 
Belknap, and Osgood, and Porter, and Kirkland, and Chan- 
ning, and Buckminster, and Thacher, and Norton, and 
JEverett, and others are among its pupils, who have been 
more distinguished than almost any who preceded them. 

They say, we shall resort to a clamour, that the interests 
of learning are in danger. We shall take no such course. 
We say that all the charges against our Alma Mater are 
false. That true religion, pure and unadulterated Chris- 
tianity, is the great object of her pursuit. She maintains, 
that Christianity can be well understood and firmly sup- 
ported only by diligent, and fair, and impartial inquiry. 

The college was originally devoted to " Christ and the 
church," and at no period of its history did the Christian 
religion engage there so large a proportion of academick 
instruction. 

At the present day, the study of the christian religion 
forms the most prominent part. There is, however, no 
attempt to disseminate Unitarian or any other sectarian 
principles. The minds of the youth are left to the opera- 
tion of free inquiry. The books which are taught, Butler, 
and Paley, and Grotius, are the works of men eminent 
for their piety, and read and approved in orthodox semi- 
naries. 

The Reviewers speak of the munificent founders of 
ancient times. The whole records of the University can- 
not furnish an example of such a donation, as the late noble 
endowment for a professorship of Greek ; one of the main 
objects of which is to aid in the critical examination of the 
holy scriptures. 



j4 . ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

The donation of the Hon. Mr. Dexter, a man of en- 
lightened mind, and pious affections, for the promotion of 
the study of Biblical criticism, is also almost unexampled 
in past times. Of the same character, and meriting equal 
applause, is the donation of Mr. Parkman for a foundation 
of a new theological professorship. 

The gossiping tales, about the prayers on publick occa- 
sions, are worthy of the cause which they are introduced 
to sustain. It would be unworthy of the defender of the 
most noble institution in America, to descend to reply to 
them. 



ONE WORD ABOUT THE CONTROVERSY WHICH HAS PRO- 
DUCED THIS DISCUSSION. 

It would be unpardonable in a layman to leave this ques- 
tion here. He ought to recollect the time, when these 
scholastick disputes were as little familiar to himself, as 
they generally are to the great body of laymen throughout 
our country. 

The opponents of true Christianity and free inquiry 
have chosen to deal in general terms, and they rely on gen- 
eral denunciations rather than on reasoning. They raise 
the cry of heretick and infidej, because they hope it will 
be as effectual, as that of " church and king" in England. 

But they must not be permitted to remain under the 
almost impenetrable cover of their mysteries and their 
watch-words. 

If our doctrines are heretical, let it be known. If they 
are scriptural, let them be defended. 

I rejoice in this occasion, as it will compel our clergy- 
men to expose the errours, which their aversion to contro- 
versy has induced them to spare. The great point which 
•has given occasion to this libel is, that many of our divines, 



OR A CALV1MST? 55 

after deliberate research, do not find the doctrine of the 
Trinity in the holy scriptures. They do not believe, 
that the great Jehovah hath any copartners in his power. 
They do not believe, that the great God himself dwelt upon 
the earth in human shape, and was buffeted and put to death, 
by men. They believe in the Divinity, or divine mission, 
though not in the Deity of Christ. They believe, that the 
Son was what he declared himself to be, inferiour to the 
Father ; that the works which he wrought, were those of 
God who sent him. Whilst the subordination and depen- 
dence of the Son appear to them undoubted, they agree in 
the most noble and exalted ideas of the Saviour. They 
desire to honour him in all the offices he is represented to 
sustain in behalf of mankind, and believe and acknowledge 
all respecting his nature and rank, which the scriptures, 
upon examination, are found to teach. They differ from 
each other in their conceptions on this point, as the Trini- 
tarians do in their definitions ; but they consider, that 
these differences, being such as may perfectly consist with 
the love of truth, ought not to be a ground of denying each, 
other's Christianity. 

As to the general doctrine of the inferiority and deriva- 
tion of the Son, they think it every-where taught in the 
New Testament, and necessarily inferred from innumerable 
passages. But this their adherence to scriptural religion, 
and what they suppose declared in Christ's gospel, is re- 
garded as a crime, unless they also believe in it, as explain- 
ed and delivered in words of man's device, by certain 
ecclesiasticks, transported by the rage of controversy, who 
lived three hundred years after the death of the Saviour, 
and in following periods. 

Besides the obscure or contradictory statements of the 
doctrine of the Trinity, which the Calvinists would have us 
believe, there are other points, for doubting which our 



56 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

teachers are anathematized, and we their hearers are etii 
joined to renounce them ; which points I think it would be 
well should be laid open. It is really important to know 
whether the scriptures teach such doctrines as these scho- 
lastick divines pretend ; because if they do, we must 
review the evidences of the sacred book, and see if it be 
possible, that a good and just God can have made such a 
revelation. 

We must believe, they say, the imputation of the sin of 
Adam ; according, however, to the last edition of the doc- 
trine. (For these gentlemen, who call us infidels, for not 
taking our creed as laid down by the reformers, with whom 
this doctrine did not come into dispute, or the Westminster 
divines, have taken the liberty for themselves to new model 
this article,) we must believe, as I understand them, that 
God willed the sin of Adam, and moreover willed, as it was 
formerly, that the guilt of this sin should descend upon 
all his posterity ; but as it is laid down in the Improved 
Version,* that, in consequence of his disobedience, all his 
descendants were constituted sinners — born with a nature 
totally depraved, utterly incapable of any act of -virtue — 
but subject for this sin of their progenitor, or the moral 
impotence which it entailed upon them, to the wrath and 
curse of God, and the pains of Hell for ever.f 

Corresponding to this doctrine of original helpless depra- 
vity and guilt, are the doctrines of irrespective decrees and 
special grace ; by which we learn, that some, elected from 
eternity of mere good pleasure, without any regard to their 
disposition or character, are the subjects of a special super- 

* See creed of the Andover Institution. 

f The eternal misery of those dying in infancy, except the children 
of believers, (i. e. Calrinists,) was long considered the necessary infer- 
ence from this doctrine of original sin. The orthodox now, I believe, 
are so good as to say, that possibly they may not go to Hell ; or, if 
they do, it will not be to the worst part of the infernal regions. 



OR A CALVINIST? 57 

natural influence, giving them saving faith, a particular ex- 
ercise towards the Saviour, which orthodoxy seems to put 
as the sign or the substitute of the whole of duty which 
secures their admission to Heaven ; whilst the other part 
of the race, and the great majority, incapable of any accep- 
table act without this grace, which yet God will not give, 
and which they can neither do any thing, nor even desire 
nor try to do any thing, to procure, are doomed to eternal 
wrath. 

Then follows the comfortable doctrine of Saints 9 perse- 
verance, which teaches, that having received this grace, 
they will never lose it; they need not fear being cast off,, 
whatever sins they may be left to commit. 

These and other views of religion, contained in this iron 
system, appear to many laymen as well as clergymen, most 
false and pernicious, proceeding from a vain spirit of specu- 
lation, and the dotage of system, contrary to the general 
tenour of the scriptures, and supported only by single, 
detached, and figurative expressions, understood in the 
gross and literal sense. They appear to us hurtful to 
general morality, opposed to the true character of God, 
tending to produce intolerable spiritual pride and bigotry 
in one class, often the least worthy, and causeless anxiety 
and tormenting oppression in another ; whilst aversion and 
skepticism towards all religion are often generated by them 
in the minds of multitudes. 

I am glad that these subjects will now be investigated 
and displayed before the publick. 

Much is said about the early reformers, and the faith 
which they held, and it is made an accusation against the 
real christians of the present day, that they do not adopt 
all the opinions of the first reformers. It would be strange 
indeed, and against all analogy and experience, if these had 
passed suddenly from great corruptions to the most perfect 
8 



58 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

light. Some of the early prejudices of their youth and 
education would adhere to them ; and it is an historical fact, 
that no sooner were they relieved from the thraldom of the 
Romish church, than they adopted the same spirit of 
persecution, and maintained the same abominable doctrine 
of the supremacy of the church, that the Pope had done. 

Some however had more catholick ideas, and I shall con- 
clude this essay with the sentiments of the venerable Mr. 
Robinson, the pastor of the church at Leyden, who were after- 
wards the founders of New-England. " Brethren, if God re- 
veal any thing unto you, be as ready to receive it as you 
were any thing by my ministry, for I am verily persuaded, 
I am very confident, that the Lord has more truth yet to 
break forth out of his holy* word. For my part, I cannot 
sufficiently bewail the condition of the reformed churches, 
who are come to a period in religion, and will go no farther 
than the instruments of their reformation. The Lutherans 
cannot be persuaded to go beyond what Luther saw, and 
the Calvinists, you see, stick fast where they were left by 
that great man of God, who yet saw not all things. This 
is a misery much to be lamented. For though they were 
burning and shining lights in their times, yet they penetra- 
ted not the whole counsel of God, but, were they now 
living, would be as willing to embrace still farther light, as 
that which they first received. It is not possible the 
christian world should come so lately out of antichristian 
darkness, and that perfection of knowledge should break 
for'h at once." 

Such were the Catholick sentiments of one of the foun- 
ders of the New-England church, in the early days of the 
reformation ; and now, when we have had the light of two 
centuries added to the knowledge which the world then 
possessed, centuries, in which Christianity has been better 
discussed, and more research has been made in the 



&R A CALVINIST? 59 

scriptures, than in all the ages which preceded them, inclu- 
ding that of the Genevan Reformer, we are told by a set 
of men, who had rather dictate than study, that we must 
not alter a letter in the creed of Calvin ! ! ! 

If any should be disposed to censure the temper in 
which this vindication is written, they should remember, 
that we are not the assailants. They should peruse the 
Panoplist Review. They will perceive that it is written 
with the most unchristian spirit, and is couched in the most 
offensive terms, of any writings, which these evil time have 
produced. 

There is a moderation, sometimes, which betrays, and 
which is as unbecoming as the want of it is at others. 

If when our venerated pastors and friends are treated as 
if they were the worst of felons, we imitate the modern 
Tartuffes, and meet their calumniators with a smile, and a 
placid and serene countenance, we shall be thought to be 
pleased or indifferent rather than indignant. 

It is from the scriptures, that we are to learn what ought 
to be our behaviour in such cases. Even our Lord and 
master always adapted his language to the persons and the 
case. When he had occasion to speak of the scribes and 
Pharisees of his day, he scruples not to treat them as they 
deserve. 

There was something in their spirit very much like that 
of the Review in question. 

Do men believe, that the race of scribes and Pharisees 
has failed ? or do they imagine, that they are not at this day 
as deserving of the censure of our Saviour, as their prede- 
cessors in Jerusalem ? 

What condemnation would our Saviour pass on those men, 
who make his gospel a cloak to cover, while they gratify, 
the most unholy passions ? 



60 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

This must be my defence. I have no personal feeling 
towards these accusers. The greater part of them I never 
saw. I judge of them only by their fruits ; and by their 
fruits I should say, that I have no wish to know them more. 
It should be recollected, that it is the cause of laymen that 
I defend, against an attempt to control the freedom of their 
opinions, and their right of selecting their pastors. 



CONCLUDING ADDRESS. 

TO LAYMEN OF ALL SECTS. 
MY BRETHREN, 

It is impossible that you should have read with atten- 
tion the history of the church of Christ, without being 
deeply impressed with the conviction, that human passions 
are never so strong, and the powers of reasoning never so 
much perverted, as when employed upon the controverted 
points of religion. It is true, that this is the most momen- 
tous of all concerns ; but it is as true, that the interests of 
Christianity cannot be promoted by a temper, which that 
religion expressly condemns, and the opposite to which 
forms its most distinguished glory and praise. Whether 
this vehemence, injustice and intolerance, this odium theo- 
logicum, which have marked, while they have impeded and 
injured, the progress of Christianity in all ages, (at least 
since the apostolical influence ceased to operate) are to be 
attributed to the shelter and security which men feel in the 
indulgence of unworthy passions, under the specious cloak 
of conscience, or whether these bigots (for there have been 
such on all sides) are really more transported beyond the 
bounds of moderation on this topick, than on any other, I 
leave to others more versed in the human character to de- 
cide. 



OR A CALVPNISTP 61 

This however we all know, that the over zealous leaders 
on theological questions have been generally ambitious and 
intriguing men. They have acted in all times, as if their 
own glory and advancement, and not those of religion, were 
the objects of their pursuit. 

We cannot review the state of religious controversy in 
Massachusetts, and the recent clamours which have been 
excited against certain pastors and certain tenets, without 
recollecting, what we know to be the fact, that for many 
years, Dr. Morse, and those who have chosen to identify 
their cause with his character and views, knew as well 
as they now do, that many of the Boston clergy held 
opinions opposed to those of Calvin, and in conformity 
with the simple doctrines which our Saviour himself 
taught. They knew also, that these opinions were gene- 
rally prevalent among the laity in their parishes. Yet, 
during all this period, Dr. Morse courted their friendship, 
and held an intimate intercourse with the men he now de- 
nounces as heretical. It was not till after his ambitious 
views on the college were defeated, and till most of the 
parishes in Boston felt a repugnance to his introduction into 
their pulpits, on various grounds, that he became an open 
assailant. 

We naturally ask, is it possible that the great body of 
intelligent laymen in Connecticut and Massachusetts can 
countenance an attempt to invade the rights of conscience, 
originating in the ignoble passions of aspiring and intriguing 
men ? Can they believe, that a great part of the citizens of 
the metropolis of New England will be driven from their 
faith by threats and insults, as impotent as they are unbe- 
coming ? 

Could a German monk, like Luther, encounter the power 
and brave the resentment of such a potentate as Charles 
the V. and do they believe that we are to be awed into 



62 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

silence, or frowned into submission, by a few intolerant and 
assuming men ? 

No. Our opinions are too firmly rooted, and our know- 
ledge of our rights too deeply settled, to permit them to 
form such hopes. But the friends of Christianity have more 
interesting considerations to weigh. Whether they consi- 
der us as orthodox or hereticks, still they know we make 
open profession of Christianity. We support it as far as 
we are able by our morals and manners, our publick pro- 
fessions, contributions and zeal. 

They should recollect, that our country presents a motley 
mixture of atheists, deists, and sectarians of all shades and 
all opinions. 

Surely, in such a state of things, it cannot be deemed ad- 
vantageous to the cause of Christianity, to engage in a cru- 
sade against men, who are among the most pacifick and sin- 
cere friends of Christianity, whose example, influence, and 
exertions are uniformly directed to its support and exten- 
sion, and whose greatest crime is, that they have shewn 
an indisposition to proselytism. 

If our faith be as heretical as is pretended, it cannot be 
for the interest of those, who call themselves the only wise 
and sound part, the orthodox, to give us the zeal, the form, 
and consistency of party. 

W r e are all well aware, what were the hopes entertained 
and the designs formed by a jew bigots, who have calum- 
niated our teachers, and attempted to undermine their influ- 
ence by arts, which would be a reproach to any cause, and 
which are scandalous in one of so solemn a nature. 

They hoped, that the cry of heresy would operate like 
the spiritual thunders of the Vatican. Like Paul IV, they 
intended to revive the spirit of persecution of another age, 
forgetting, like him, that the day of spiritual tyranny had 
gone by, and that the thunder would be heard, like the 
mimick artillery of the stage. 



OR A CALVINIST? 63 

If I were a zealot in favour of liberal Christianity, which 
I am far from being, if I wished to see it extended and 
triumphant, I should say, "Persecute us, compel us to 
exert our talents, to take the form and assume the spirit of 
a party. Undefiled and uncorrupted Christianity, so long 
restrained by civil power in other countries, might then 
spread. Become a sect and distinction, it would soon have 
all the energy which belongs to other sects." But this is 
against our principles. We wish it to make the silent but 
sure progress, which truth will always make, as knowledge 
and virtue extend themselves. 

As to the zeal which is now displayed in favour of Cal- 
vinism, you must all be sensible, that it is not greater than 
that, which so long supported, and still supports the worst 
doctrines of the Romish church. 

It is not comparable to the ardour and sincerity of those, 
who in the days which the orthodox call so enlightened, 
persecuted the persons charged with sorcery. 

Yet we well know, that after the delusion of the moment 
had past away, men saw none of those open interferences 
of the devil, none of those supernatural agencies, which so 
long deceived a fanatical people, and the belief of which, 
to the disgrace of our nation, found its way even into the 
sanctuaries of justice. So too, we would fain hope and sin- 
cerely believe, that when the present infatuation shall have 
subsided, we shall not find men placing religion in those 
miraculous conversions which afford such consolatory mat- 
ter for the Panoplist. Strange consolation indeed ! won- 
derful perversion of human reason ! to exult over the 
unhappy victims of deluded fanaticism ! 

Not a year passes over our heads, in which there are not 
many persons of amiable and susceptible feelings, driven 
by mistaken views of God and religion, to the desperation 
of suicide. I count not the thousands who suffer tortures 



64 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

produced by a melancholy which neither amends the heart 
nor purifies the life, while it renders the subjects of the 
malady useless to societj', and a burden to themselves. 
Such are the frequent fruits of a doctrine derogatory to 
God, and wholly unfounded in scripture ! Laymen naturally 
take simpler views of religion, than those who are involved 
in the subtleties of scholastick divinity. 

We ask not, what may possibly be the construction of an- 
obscure passage in scripture, written in a language suffi- 
ciently, but at best imperfectly, understood, addressed to 
men who had particular prejudices, which it was the object 
of the apostles to o\ ercome ; we rather ask for distinct and 
intelligible rules, for facts, for narrative, for examples. We 
search the scriptures in vain for precedents of those gloomy 
conversions, which are now represented as the only sure 
tests of regeneration and acceptance with God. Were the 
catechumens, or newly converted christians, required to 
shew such a morbid and melancholy state of mind, as are at 
this day considered the proofs of the gracious interference 
of God ? No. Is there a case of suicide produced by the 
picture given by the apostles of the attributes of God ? Not 
one. It is not more true that the doctrines taught by our 
Saviour did not produce these bitter fruits which the tree 
of Calvinism brings forth, than it is, that we seldom see this 
sudden conversion, or this morbid melancholy, among the 
conspicuous leaders and teachers of these doctrines. No. 
The penance belongs altogether to the laity. The chief 
duty of the spiritual fathers is to preserve their authority, 
and extend the influence of their body. Hence we have 
seen in our day a new creation ; extended associations with, 
indefinite powers. Anew "society of Jesus" with more 
than one Loyola at its head. 

People who are acquainted with ecclesiastical history 
will not smile at the idea of this new combination. The 



OR A GALVINIST? £5 

Panoplistmay ridicule as much as it pleases the suggestion 
that they aim at Ecclesiastical tyranny. We perceive 
from their spirit, that the power only is wanting. 

These new associations, if not watched and made the 
objects of jealousy, will soon become tremendous engines in 
the hands of skilful and ambitious men. The Roman pon- 
tiffwho dethroned monarchs, and brought the emperours of 
Europe to his feet, was only the simple successour of St 
Peter, who walked barefooted to Rome, and fell a martyr 
to his faith, in that city where his successour sat enthroned 
in purple. 

At this moment, the general associations, though created 
with the view of forcing conformity to Calvinism, and extir- 
pating heresy, appear very harmless. They terminate in 
pleasant tours at free cost: much respect and good cheer to 
the delegates. 

If the end should be defeated, the reward is felt in the 
Honour and distinction of those employed. If succesful, 
and heresy should be put down ; if they can force the in- 
habitants of opulent towns to reject their beloved pastors, 
much fame will attend the labourers, and some solid rewards.' 

Laymen in general, I fear, have not noticed this alarm- 
ing inroad on our ecclesiastical constitution. A new form 
of government has been introduced, without the authority 
of the people or the state. For nearly two hundred years 
the discipline of our churches rested on the Cambridge 
platform. There were no general associations, no ecclesi- 
astical assemblies which arrogated to themselves the rio-ht 
of settling matters of faith. All these things were regulated 
by councils either mutual or ex parte, called for each par- 
ticular case. The general convention of Congregational 
ministers never assumed to itself supervisory, or legislative, 
or judicial powers. If any publick body had a right to 
assume them, certainly that body had. 



ffi ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN 

Suddenly we find rising up, associations in every state, to 
which only one party are invited, and these again are 
strengthened by similar associations through almost all the 
northern states. 

To what valuable or even honourable end these societies 
can be directed, it is difficult to perceive ; but that they 
may have the most pernicious effects on the rights and lib- 
erties of the citizens in matters of faith we can all see. 

The authority of general councils, and of the Roman 
see, took its rise in commencements infinitely more feeble. 

Once established and acquiesced in, they might proceed 
as the associations in Connecticut have sometimes done, to 
separate a parish and its pastor, where they were perfectly 
harmonious ; and to strip a clergyman of his sacerdotal 
character, for being faithful to his master. 

At present, however, the scheme appears to us as absurd 
and quixotick as it is bold and unjustifiable. 

A set of men, surrounded with enemies in their own 
camp, with Methodists, and Baptists, and Universalists, 
scarcely able to meet their parochial and domestick foes, 
combine to carry their spiritual arms into the territories of 
their natural allies, the liberal christians ; allies who, at- 
tached to Christianity on principle, convinced of its truth, 
zealous for its propagation, but determined that it shall not 
suffer by a misrepresentation of its principles, have no 
other end in view, than union and harmony in the christian 
church, and the liberty of worshipping God conformably to 
what they believe the scripture rules. 

Although, from necessity, I have used general terms when 
speaking of the orthodox, because such terms were assumed 
by Dr. Worcester and the editors of the Panoplist, yet I 
do not contend (as they do) with regard to Unitarians, 
that all the persons, who agree with them on some points, are 
responsible for all their opinions or unfair proceedings. 



en A CALVINIST ? QJ 

1 rejoice to believe that the greater part of the Calvinists, 
or the orthodox, or the true christians, (or whatever other 
name they may choose to assume,) disapprove the very 
improper, uncharitable measures, adopted by these persons 
who have undertaken to speak in their name. 

I would fain believe, nay, 1 do verily believe, that there 
are not ten clergymen in this state, who do not in their 
hearts condemn the shameful article in the Panoplist, and 
the violent and indecent measures taken to bring about a 
theological quarrel. If I am mistaken in this, I shall be 
compelled to withdraw much of the respect I yet have for 
the Calvinistick clergy. 

I am aware that it may be said by the orthodox, we con- 
sider your opinions as heretical, we view them as hostile 
to the essential doctrines of Christianity, and that we are as 
much bound to oppose them as the attacks of avowed unbe- 
lievers. But it should be recollected that this is the same 
language which was employed by the Catholicks in opposi- / 
tion to the Reformers. If these gentlemen are sincere in 
this opinion, let them adopt the only course which the prin- 
ciples of the reformation admit. Let them attack these 
heresies, if they deem them such, by argument, not by as- 
sociations. Names and numbers have no tendency, in such 
an age as this to enforce the belief of opinions which must 
depend on argument and fact. Let them assert the doc- 
trine of the infallibility of the early reformers, and shew, 
that they arrived at once from the the darkest super- 
stition and the most absurd opinions, to the most perfect 
light — that they possessed the gift of inspiration, and that 
to their opinions full and implicit faith is due. 

But surely the course which has been adopted is not con- 
sonant to fair reasoning, or the spirit of the gospel. It 
cannot be reputable for any sect to set forward the most 
audacious and least respected of their party, to overwhelm 
their adversaries with abuse and calumny. To place at 



68 ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN, &c. 

their head, men in whom neither party have confidence. 
Let them rather select the ablest and purest, and meekest 
persons of their party, and depute them to display and de- 
fend their doctrines in a temperate and rational manner. 
It is by force of reasoning alone that Christianity has made 
its principal progress in the world. It is one of its most 
powerful arguments and supports in opposition to Mahome^ 
tanism and other false religions, that it has not generally 
employed the sword, but has relied on its intrinsick merit 
for its support. 

This principle ought not to be deserted in cases of dis- 
sension as to the more minute doctrines of the gospel. To 
use the weapons of scurrility and abuse on this most sol- 
emn subject, to excite the worst passions of mankind, and 
more especially to form combinations to put down free in^ 
quiry and excite odium against those who hold opinions 
differing from ours, would argue a spirit little less hostile 
%than the expedient of the darker ages, the condemnation 
of hereticks to the stake. 

We therefore hope, that all parties will unite in condemn- 
ing this illiberal spirit. That there will be a common con- 
sent to denounce, as unworthy of the cause of Christ, such 
publications as the Review in the Panoplist, and that the 
orthodox will with one voice agree to advise Dr. Worcester, 
to adopt a course in some small degree consonant to the 
spirit of the gospel, and to the enlightened age which it has 
pleased God to permit us to enjoy. In a struggle to elicit 
truth, to establish the fundamental articles of Christianity, 
we engage that the liberal clergy will not shrink from their 
share of the labour, and we pledge ourselves, from our 
knowledge of them, that they will not be outdone in zeaj 
for Christianity, in efforts to draw from the rich mines of 
literature and biblical learning the means of informing the 
raind?, and settling the faith of christians. 

A LAYMAN. 



NOTE. 



I have said, that I could not condescend to notice the scurri- 
lous attacks of the Panoplist on the revered head of our Uni- 
versity. 

There seemed to be something so base, in setting " children" 
to watch the exercises on publick occasions, and collecting " re- 
spectable gentlemen from different parts of the American union" 
to act as inquisitors upon the occasion, that I could not persuade 
myself, that such measures would produce any other sensation 
than contempt. 

But as I have an opportunity of shewing the temper with 
which the Panoplist is conducted, and the means which it has 
adopted to cast an odium on the college, I think I ought not to 
omit it. It was stated in the Panoplist that Dr. Kirkland had 
written " a letter of consolation and encouragement to the new 
Unitarian church in Philadelphia." 

We presumed this must have been true. We could not have 
believed that any clergyman would have dared to suggest such a 
thing without evidence. 

It seems, however, from the evidence we are now to exhibit, 
that it was not true. 

One of the gentlemen who officiate in that church having seen 
the Panoplist, of his own accord wrote in a letter to his friend 
in Boston, the original of which is now before me, as follows : 

" I perceive he, Dr. Kirkland, is accused of having written a 
letter of consolation and encouragement to the new Unitarian 
church in Philadelphia. 

" Had the fact been so, there is nothing to call forth any cen- 
sure, as not a word of the letter is even quoted : but the truth is, 
no such letter was ever written. 

" I have made strict inquiry, and find that there was a letter 
written by Dr. Kirkland to Mr. Vaughan, in answer to some 
queries as to the terms of admission and tuition at Cambridge, 
and the rules of the college, and this, or a non-entity, must be the 
letter of encouragement and consolation, which we, like our 
apostle Belsham, have been complaisant enough to publish, by 
shewing it to some of our orthodox friends. " Our apostle Bel- 
sham," with whom we have neither intercourse nor correspon- 
dence, and to whose creed, as set forth in the Panoplist, I hazard 
nothing in saying not one of us would assent. 



70 .NOTES. 

" I sliould like if it were possible, to put such a man as the 
writer of the article in the Panoplist to the blush, to ask him 
when this letter was written, to whom it was addressed, who was 
made acquainted with its contents, and what it really did contain. 

" After so gross a falsehood, the strictures on the prayers of 
the President can only deceive those who are resolved to sup- 
port what they call orthodoxy at the expense of truth and con- 
sistency. Perhaps it may not be amiss to mention the fact now 
stated. You well know my situation in our church, and that if 
any letter of consolation had been sent from so respectable a 
quarter as the above, I could not have been kept in ignorance 
either of its contents or existence. You also know that we have 
never been in a situation to need consolation. Among ourselves 
we have had uninterrupted harmony, and all the calumnies and 
denunciations of ' the pious,' the ' orthodox,' and the ' evan- 
gelical' have been unheeded." 



NOTE 2. 

After the foregoing remarks were put to the press, I received 
the last number of the Panoplist, which contains the proceedings 
of one of the new grand associations, to which I have referred, 
and whose object is now more distinctly developed, than it has 
heretofore been. It is too late for me to enter into the conside- 
ration of the deep project which is now laid open, to break down 
the constitution, by which the churches of this state have been 
governed for more than a century and an half. It will require a 
separate and more enlarged examination than I can possibly give 
to it in the present stage of my essay. I have no doubt that it 
will excite such feelings as will call forth the ablest champions 
of the rights of the church. 

This project, though covered by as much art and sophistry, as 
has ever been displayed by men aiming at secret encroachments 
on the rights of others, is simply this, under colour of enforcing 
and amending, to abrogate and annul, the Cambridge platform, 
which has been the rule of discipline, and palladium of our reli- 
gious liberties, from the earliest settlement of our country, and to 
substitute in its place a new ecclesiastical tribunal, unknown to 
our ancestors, and subversive of our religious rights. 

To give it some degree of respect from antiquity, an obsolete 
manuscript of Dr. Cotton Blather has been drawn forth from the 
rubbish of the last century, and is now attempted to be imposed 
upon the christian churches of this state as the rule of their 
government. Even these gentlemen did not venture on their 
own popularity to hazard such an innovation and revolution in 



noTEs. 71 

the church. Even they are constrained to admit that it was so odi- 
ous in Massachusetts, in 1706, when it was proposed, " that there 
were some considerable persons among the ministers, (even in 
that day) as well as of the brethren, who thought the liberties of 
particular churches to be in danger of being limited and infringed 
by them. In deference to these, the proposals were never prose- 
cuted beyond the bounds of mere proposals." 

In other words, they did not dare attempt to carry the propo- 
sals into effect, at a time when religious liberty was les3 under- 
stood, and the rights of conscience less valued than at this 
moment. 

And why did they not ? Because the proposals go to the utter 
abolition of the right of churches to govern themselves. 

They confer the right on ecclesiastical councils, to put any 
church out of the pale of christian communion. They confer 
the right on these councils, not chosen by the parties, to refuse 
ordination, and to depose any clergyman, even against the con- 
sent of any member of his own church and parish. The reserva- 
tion of not extending the power beyond the churches who may 
join this confederacy, against the liberties of the people, we know 
how to appreciate, by the conduct of the Tolland association. 

We are however encouraged to accept it, by the suggestion 
that Connecticut did at that day adopt it. Yes, she diu\ and we 
have seen its fruits. The recommendation in brief is, that Mas- 
sachusetts shall abolish her religious charter, and conform her dis- 
cipline to that of Connecticut, though she nobly refused so to do> 
one hundred years ago. 

I am pleased to see, that the association had not sufficient in- 
discretion to recommend this project for immediate adoption. I 
flatter myself that the greater part of them disapprove it. If 
adopted, it will prove a fatal blow to the influence and standing 
of the Congregational clergy. The forcing through such a plan, 
in derogation of our present church constitution, and tending to 
destroy the only check which laymen now have on ecclesiasti- 
cal usurpation, I am afraid would be the signal of commotions in 
the church, which would only end in the utter destruction of 
Congregational churches and discipline. This is no idle fear. 
It is solemn conviction. Many are the hours which most dis- 
tinguished laymen have spent, and great have been their exer- 
tions, to stem that torrent of innovation and opposition to the 
regular clergy, which for twenty years has threatened to under- 
mine the feeble props which they still enjoy under the consti- 
tution. 

But if the minority feel that they are to be oppressed, if revo- 
lutions are to be set on foot by those whom the laity have 
laboured to protect, they must suppose them to be more than 



/ 



72 .NOTES. • 

men, if they continue to offer themselves as a rampart to protect 
those who are labouring to destroy their dearest rights. 

It would be easy to shew, and it will be shewn, that this project 
is also a direct violation of the constitution, laws, and liberties of 
Massachusetts. Men can make any associations they please, but 
they cannot give them the smallest practical efficacy or power 
without the aid of the government. If they invite that govern- 
ment to interfere in ecclesiastical affairs, and to regulate the dis- 
cipline or faith of churches, they will soon find, that they have 
entered a path beset with thorns, from which they may in vain 
wish to extricate themselves. Abolish the Cambridge Platform, 
and the Congregational churches will soon be found on a tempes- 
tuous sea, without compass, or rudder, or pilots. The courts of 
law Avill however protect the people against such usurpations. 

We ask, if such a plan was deemed proper, why did they not 
submit it to the Convention of Ministers in Massachusetts, to 
whom it was first submitted by Mr. Mather ? 

Why ask the consent of a body unknown to our laws and 
usages, a body self created, and naturally liable to suspicion, as it 
excludes all who differ from it in articles of faith ? 

Such proceedings must and will excite distrust. They furnish 
a new proof, that clergymen are too apt to neglect the most useful 
study, that of. mankind, although their chief object ought to be to 
know them thoroughly, in order to be useful to them in their 
ministry. It will not tend to render the new scheme more 
acceptable to the publick, that its arrangement was confided to 
those who do not enjoy much of the publick confidence. — The 
project appears to have been formed, and is subscribed, only 
by Jedidiah Morse of Connecticut. It is worthy of considera- 
tion, whether there should not be a covenant instantly formed 
by the friends of religious freedom, and of the Cambridge Plat- 
form, for its defence against all schemes of innovation, and a 
publick convention of laity and clergy of those opinions, called 
to adopt measures to counteract this conspiracy against the 
church and its ancient rights. 

The foregoing strictures were principally written and in the press, at a time when ii 
was supposed that Mr. Channing would not reply to such a letter as Dr. Worcester's. 
Had it been known that Mr. Channing would have undertaken his own justification, 
many of the foregoing remarks would have been suppressed as unnecessary. 



AN" INQMRr 



INTO THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE 



ECCLESIASTICAL CONSTITUTION 



CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES 



OF MASSACHUSETTS. 



W-ITH A PREFACE, ADDRESSED TO THE REV. JOSEPH LYMAN, D. fi. 

UNDER TnE SANCTION OF WHOSE NAME SUCH A CHANGE HAS 

BEEN PROPOSED TS THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE. 



TO WHICH IS PREFIXED, 

Dr. Morse's Report to the General Association of Massachusetts, from the 
Panoplist of August, 1815. 



BOSfotf : 

PRINTER AND PUBLISHED BY WILIS AKO T.11.LY. 

1816. 



t'com the Panoplist, August, 1815. Volume eleventh, p. 3.07. 
RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE. 

EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE GRNERAL ASSOCIATION OK MASSACHUSETTS 
I'ROPEIi, HOLDXN AT ROYALSTON, ON THE FOURTH TUESBAY, VIZ. THE 27TH DAT 
OF JUNE, A. D. 1815, AND CONTINUED BY ADJOURNMENT TO THE 29TH OF THE 
SAME MONTH. 

The Rev. Joseph Lyman, D.D. was chosen Moderator, and the Rev. James Muf- 
dock, and the Rev. John Codman, were chosen Scribes. 

The members next presented their credentials. 

Thursday morning, June 29th, 3 A.M. met according to adjournment. After 
prayer took up the business assigned to this hour. 

Voted, to go iuto a free discussion of the subject of the following motion : " That 
the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the history of an original MS. 
Document, &c. be printed, and copies sent to the several Associations in our connex- 
ion, for the purpose of ascertaining the pu'niick sentiments respecting the plan of ec- 
clesiastical order therein presented, and that the subject be called up at the next 
meeting of the General Association." After the discussion, the motion was passed 
inte a vote, and Messrs. Morse, Codman and Woods, appointed a Committee for 
publishing the above mentioned Report, with instructions to print it in connexion 
with the preceding vote. 

REPORT TO GENERAL ASSOCIATION. 

The Committee of the General Association of Massachusetts Proper, 
appointed at their last annual meeting at Dorchester, " to inquire 
into the history of an original MS. document,* found among the 
papers of Rev. Dr. Cotton Mather, contain ng an answer to 
the question, * What further steps are to be takeu, that Councils 
may have their due constitution and efficacy in supporting, pre- 
serving, and well ordering, the interest of the Churches in the coun- 
try ?' And ' particularly to ascertain, whether the resolves it con- 
tains were carried into execution at the time, and to what extent ; 
and to report at the next annual meeting of this Association, on the 
expediency of a recommendation of this body, of the plan of disci- 
pline there proposed, either entire, or with alterations and amend- 
ments, to the consideration of the Associations and churches in our 
connexion,' " — have attended deliberately and prayerfully to the 
weighty and very important business committed to them, and re- 
spectfully submit the following 

REPORT. 

I HE history of the Document aboved escribed, other than what is 
contained in the published minutes of the last meeting of the General 
Association,! so far as your Committee have been able to ascertain it, is 
summarily as follows : Shortly after it had received the sauction of 
the Convention of Ministers in Massachusetts at their annual meeting 
in May, 1706, this Document was published by the Rev. John Wiss, 

* This Document may be found in the Panopligt for July 1814, p. 320. 
f Bee Panoplist before quoted. 



of Ipswich, in a work entitled " The Churches' Quarrel Espoused" 
The signatures, and the fact that the Proposals received the approba- 
tion of the Convention of Ministers, were omitted by Mr. Wise, in his 
poblication, and appeared in print for the first time, in the Minutes of 
this Association. 

The Proposals embraced under theirs? Division, recommending the 
formation of Associations, and suggesting their appropriate duties, it 
appears were so far regarded, as that twenty years after, " the country 
was full of Associations, formed by the pastors in their several vicini- 
ties, for the prosecution of evangelical purposes."* The Proposals 
under the second Division, recommending the Consociation of the pas- 
tors and Churches, and" forming them into standing ecclesiastical Coun- 
cils, for certain purposes tl.erein stated, were (as Dr. C. Mather in- 
forms us, in his Ratio Discipline, published in 1726) substantially 
adopted, at the time, in Connecticut, and have ever since formed the 
basis of their ecclesiastical proceedings. In Massachusetts the same 
writer states, that " there were some very considerable persons among 
the ministers, as well as of the brethren, who thought the liberties of 
particular Churches to be in danger of being limited and infringed i» 
them. In deference to these, (he adds) the proposals were never pro- 
secuted beyond the bounds of mere proposals."} 

Your Committee, in this place, take leave, in fulfilment of a part of 
the duty assigned them, to state, that the Proposals last alluded to 
are, in various respects such, that in their opinion congregational min- 
isters cannot consistently recommend or approve them. They forbear to 
enlarge on this subject, and beg leave to refer to the plan submitted at 
the close of this report, as containing the deliberate views of the 
Committee. 

Further light, your Committee conceive, may he thrown on the his- 
tory of the Document in question, by a recurrence to its origin and 
design , which may be inferred frem its introductory sentence — " To 
serve the great intentions of Religion, which is lamentably decaying in 
the country." Viewing, as it appears they did, with deep concern, a- 
visible decline in the order, discipline, purity, and fruitfulness of the 
Churches, the body of the Clergy of that day, devised the means sug- 
gested in the Proposals in question, as the best remedy against existing, 
evils. The principal cause, of this lamentable decay of religion, m 
the view of the framers of these Proposals, may be inferred from the 
remedies which they propose for their removal ; and from a paper 
annexed'to this report, published about the year 17004 Among the 
most operative of these causes appear to have been laxness in disci- 
pline, and a growing defect in the fellowship, union and co-operation? 
among the Churches and their pastors. § These radical evils, which 
generated many others, had been gradually increasing for about half a 

* Ratio DiscipHnae, p. 181. f Ibid. p. 184. 

X See this Paper entitled, " More particular prognostications upon the future state- 
of New- England," in the Panoplist, for July 1814, p. 324. It is referred to the 
reader's particular attention. 

$ One of the evils complained of, and which prompted the movers of the measures 
proposed in the document ander consideration, is thus stated : " When Councils are 
called hy litigant parties in churches, upon emergencies, it had been hitherto in the 
liberty of each party, to choose and call their own councils, where they pleased y 
which left room for much partiality to operate, and one. Council to succeed and op- 



centnry after the Platform of the New-England Chnrches had been 
adopted at Cambridge. Fifty years experience had taught discerning 
men, both of the laity and clergy, that some further measures were ne- 
cessary to carry into full effect some of the salutary provisions of that 
Instrument; those particularly which were desigied to regulate the 
fellowship and discipline of the churches. Other provisions relating to 
the introduction, discipline, and dismission of ministers, were found in- 
expedient in practice, and of course fell into disuse. In managing these 
important ecclesiastical concerns, so intimately connected with the gen- 
eral welfare of religion, the Churches were left, each to its own discretion, 
without any generally acknowledged uniform rule to govern them ; and 
the Platform, thus disregarded in some of its essential provisions, gradu- 
ally ceased to be a guide of discipline, and a bond of union in the Church- 
es That fellowship, mutual affection, and care ; that agreement in the 
fundamental articles of the Christian faith, which, from the first plant- 
ing of these churches had happily subsisted among them, cemented 
their union, and produced the best effects, after the lapse of a half a 
century, began visibly to decline. The wise and pious among the 
watchmen, perceiving these things, were justly alarmed at the inevita- 
ble consequences, and felt it to be an imperious duty to exert their 
best efforts to stay these evils, by strengthening the things which re- 
mained, and which were ready to die. 

It was in this state of the churches, and on a deliberate view of these 
evils, that the Proposals in question, were devised, and on due consi- 
deration, adopted by the Convention of the clergy. 

Your Committee have not sufficient facts in their possession deter- 
minate Jy to state the various causes which operated to prevent these 
Proposals from going into effect. Their form was not the most unex- 
ceptionable, and hence was afforded advantage to opposers. The 
Consociation of Churches, though not precisely in the manuer delinea- 
ted in these Proposals, was not new to Christians in New-England. 
They well knew, that the primitive churches in the three first centu- 
ries, were in fact, if not in form, consociated. The principles of Con- 
■ociation were recoguised, in the Platform, and in their deliberate 
judgment were supported by the word of God. 

In 1716, Dr. Increase Mather published his "Disquisition concern- 
ing Ecclesiastical Councils." It does not appear that he approved- 
these proposals. Yet so far was he, from being " disaffected to the 
Consociation of Churches, in order to the preservation of the faith and 
order of the gospel" among them, that, he expressly declares, he con- 
siders such a measure " not only lawful, but absolutely necessary for the 
establishment of the churches" — that " light of natural reason, as well 
as scripture, teaches churches in common with other societies, to asso- 
ciate and combine for their common safety" — that, " this was prac- 
tised in the primitive times of Christianity, and by most of the re- 
formed churches, at that time existing in Europe" — and that " a due 
attendance to the communion and consociation of churches, will, by 
the blessing of the Lord Jesus Christ, be a good means to prevent de- 
generacy and to establish them in that holy faith and order of the gos- 
pel which has been professed and practised among them ; and by 

pose another with an endless confusion, more proper for a Babel than a city of God." 
It wag hence "thought that prudence called for a more effectual provision.' •* 

* Ratio Disciplina^p, 182. 



which the religious people in New-England have been distinguished." 
— He concludes by recommending the Consociation of Churches, in the 
form submitted by your Committee, at the close of this Report, as his 
*• dying farewell to the churches in New-England. So will JSew-Eng- 
land remain Sew- England." 

The consequences of disregarding this sound advice, have been wit- 
nessed in the state of the churches in Massachusetts for a century 
past, and are apparent in their present state. No man can survey the 
Christian ministry and churches in this Commonwealth, without deep 
solicitude and grief. Comparing our religious state with the standard 
set before us in the word of God, or in the example of the early 
churches of New-England, we can hardly refrain from exclaiming, 
" How is the gold become dim !" Doubtless the grand cause of the 
disordered state of the churches is, generally speaking, the want of 
growing personal holiness. 

Your Committee consider it their special duty to call the attention 
of the General Association to those evils in our ecclesiastical state, ivhich 
affect churches and mi7iisters in their publick character and in their re- 
lation to each other. 

That churches and pastors of churches do in fact sustain an import- 
ant relation to each other, and also what the nature of that relation 
is, must be clear to every man, who duly considers, that they are all 
members of one kingdom, and subject to the authority of one King; 
that they are all partakers of one Spirit, and enlisted inio one and the 
same cause ; and that they are frequently called, in discharge of their 
duty, to promote a common interest. The relation existing among 
churches and ministers was constituted by God himself, and cannot be 
set aside, without opposing divine wisdom, and taking away the very 
foundation of christian society. 

The principle of ministerial and church fellowship must be consider- 
ed as of prime consequence, and it is obviously from a growing disre- 
gard of this principle, that the various evils, of which we complain, 
have resulted, — nor that the principle of fellowship has been openly 
disavowed ; for it is expressly recognised in our Platform, and would 
certainly have been more largely insisted upon and more clearly de- 
fined, had there been the same occasion for it, that there is now. This 
principle is also tacitly allowed in many of on ecclesiastical proceed- 
ings. But it is, to a great extent, practicality disregarded. It is not 
generally understood what the fellowship of ministers and churches is, 
or what are the reciprocal rights and obligations implied in it- These 
rights and obligations are no where clearly explained, and by men 
seriously contemplated. Indeed, with the exception of a few things 
which occasionally occur, and which appear like remaining fragments 
of a system once in existence, the sacred principle of fellowship among 
the churches is overlooked and forgotten. 

But there are several particular evils in the present state of our 
ecclesiastical affairs, which demand distinct consideration. 

The first is, a prevailing neglect of discipline towards offending mem- 
bers if churches, and the difficulty of going through a regular course of 
discipline, when attempted. 

The principal thing whfch we shall state, as having a tendency to 
increase and perpetuate this evil, is the abandonment of the sacred prin- 
ciple of fellowship among the churches. In maintaining faithful disci- 



pline over its members, every church needs the united support of 
other churches. Their relation to the individual church ought in this 
case to be perfectly visible, and their determination and influence in 
favour of strict discipline to be known and felt by all. Were it so, 
the offender, who might be disposed to be discontented and refractory, 
seeing that he could obtain no countenance from abroad, would find it 
necessary to submit; and thus, in a multitude of cases, difficulty 
would be prevented and church order established. 

But in the present disjointed state of things, an offender, who grows 
impatient of restraint, and desirous to get rid of wholesome discipline, 
is able to obtain, from some quarter, the support he wishes, and thus 
entirely to elude the authority of the church, or to create endless diffi- 
culty and disorder. 

The abandonment of the principle of fellowship among the churches 
has promoted the evil abovementioned, by preventing a general agree- 
ment in the mode of discipline. At present there is no uniform system 
of rules to govern the conduct of churches. The Cambridge Platform, 
though an able and useful treatise, is not adopted and used as a manual 
of discipline in our churches. Indeed, though we should be among the 
first to plead for the general soundness of the principles contained in the 
Platform, we doubt whether those principles are exhibited in so precise 
and particular a manner, as the present state of things would require. 
Let the churches then, in the exercise of their own rights, carefully 
survey their disordered and exposed condition. Let them deliberate ; 
let them consult; and upon the scriptural principles laid down in our 
Platform, let them agree to adopt a uniform system of rules for the 
regulation of church discipline. 

Such a course as we have taken the liberty to suggest has often been 
pursued in civil affairs. The growing experience of states and nations 
has showed the necessity of erecting upon the basis of the Constitution 
first adopted a more perfect scheme of government, — of stating more 
explicitly what was in any measure equivocal, — of correcting new con- 
structions, — of multiplying statutes suited to new exigencies, — and es- 
pecially of pursuing measures, before unthoughtof, to carry into effect 
original provisions. 

Whatever maybe said in commendation of the Platform, it has long 
since ceased to be of general practical use. Its provisions are not car- 
ried into effect. By our churches at large, it is not regarded as of any 
consideration. It is then perfectly evident, that there is no agreement 
among our churches in a system of discipline. 

The want of such agreement in a system of discipline has been the 
natural consequence of our abandoning the general principle of fellow- 
ship among the churches ; and has contributed much to the prostration 
of christian order and government. Many members of churches, and 
some pastors of but little experience, are doubtful what to do. And if 
they venture to act, they are in danger of taking a course, which will 
give great advantage to delinquents, and impede the efficacy of the 
most faithful exertions. 

Secondly. In the present state of things, there is no regular and ac- 
knowledged method in which congregational churches can exercise a chris- 
tian watch and care over each other. A church, as well as an individual 
member, may apostatize from the common faith, and fall into disor- 
ders totally incompatible with the christian character. U such be the 

'-- 



8 

fact with any church, can other churches in fellowship be indifferent ?— 
But what shall they do ? — if, without seeing evidence of repentance, 
they continue their fellowship, they give countenance to disorder. On 
the other hand, if, before investigating the grounds of dissatisfaction 
and taking proper measures to reclaim the offending church, they with- 
hold communion, they offer violence to the common principles of fel- 
lowship and decorum. Clearly, nothing can with propriety be done, 
without an investigation. It is the duty of a church, in every such case, 
to submit to an investigation, and be ready to give reasonable satisfac- 
tion. A refusal to do this would be to renounce all fellowship. But 
what church in Massachusetts now practically claims the right to ask^ 
or recognizes the obligation to give satisfaction. So distracted is the 
state of our ecclesiastical affairs, and so vague, and loose, and weak the 
principle of union, that churches in our fellowship may go to the great- 
est jength of ar;osiasy, without any inspection, and without losing 
that mdeOnite fellowship with us, which they before enjoyed. 

Is it said, that an apostate church does expose itself to animadver- 
sion, and ought to be treated accordingly ? Granted. But upon what 
principle ? and according to what acknowledged ruh ? In the present pos- 
tore of our ecclesiastical affairs, there can be no regular investigation 
of fiie case. Have we then a right to withhold fellowship from a church 
at our opt'on, by a sovereign vote, and thus, perhaps without just cause, 
to wound its sensibilities and stigmatize its reputation? What a bane- 
ful influenre would such a principle have ? What ecclesiastical despo- 
tism and anarchy would it introduce ? 

Nothing seems calculated to secure us against these difficulties, but 
an explicit acknowledgment of mutual responsibility among the churches, 
and a definite statement, in which all churches in felloivship with each, 
other shall agree, of their reciprocal rights and obligations, and of the 
exact manner in which those rights shall be exercised and those obliga- 
tions fulfilled. But at present, there is no explicit acknowledgment 
of mutual responsibility, and no definite, intelligible statement of re- 
ciprocal rights and duties, or of the method of intercourse. Here, as 
in the case abovemenlicned, the Platform, which plainly exhibits the 
general duty of fellowship among the churches, is neither consulted 
nor acknowledged. 

At the same time, the avowed sentiments of some, and the practical 
sentiments of many are such, as to exempt churches from alUnutual in- 
spection, and yet require us to have fellowship with all churches, call- 
ing themselves Congregational, whatever be their faith or conduct. And 
what is still more insufferable, we are under a kind of necessity of al- 
lowing our disorderly members to call in churches, the most defective 
in christian character, to censure our principles, to overturn our inter- 
nal discipline, to sanction disorder and heresy, and to attack the repu- 
tation oHaUbful ministers. 

These considerations clearly show that the principles of fellowship 
among the churches which are laid down in our Platform, are of vast 
importance, and roust be carried into effect, before peace and pros- 
perity cau be found in our Zion. But there is no prospect of carrying 
those principles into effect without a great and united effort. The 
churches roust deliberate, and act. On the basis of the principles as- 
serted in the Platform, let them jointly settle a plan that ?hall be regu- 
lar and practicable, of ascertaining the character of those churches with 



9 ' 

wMch we are to be connected, of avoiding those which are corrupt, and 
of counselling and admonishing sister churches as occasion may require. 
Thirdly. There is one more evil in our eeclesiaslical affairs, which 
we think it necessary distinctly to notice, that is, the want of a settled 
and effectual method of calling ministers to account for immorality and 
errour, and of protecting them against calumny and injustice. There is 
no reason why a minister should not be as subject to inspection as a pri- 
vate christian. Nay, the publicity and importance of his office, furnish 
special reasons, why he should enjoy the advantage of the most vigilant 
and faithful inspection. The body of men, who are to exercise this in- 
spection, should be well known, their rights and duties well defined, 
and every thing relative to the mode of proceeding be, by common 
agreement, fully determined. The venerable authors of the Platform 
provided, though in terms not sufficiently definite for present use, for 
calling ministers to account before an ecclesiastical Council; and vari- 
ous publick documents show, that they themselves and other men of 
like spirit began soon after to feel the necessity of further and more 
effectual provisions, and proceeded distinctly to propose them. But 
the provisions of the Platform, and those afterwards proposed are disre- 
garded, and by most men forgotten. 

The defects of the system which actually prevails relative to the dis- 
cipline of ministers are too palpable to escape notice, or to need parti- 
cular explanation. We have, in the first place, no effectual means of 
keeping corrupt or incompetent men from entering into the ministry 
and obtaining ordination. Suppose the friends of ecclesiastical order 
are sometimes admitted to a place in ordaining councils. What influ- 
ence can they have, wheu there is a majority in number, determined to 
outvote them ? The rights of conscience, which they think it their duty 
to exercise, are assaulted, and they are, of a truth, expected to take it 
tor granted, as a self-evident proposition, that the candidate for the sa- 
cred office is well qualiiied, and to give their voice for his ordination, 
without being indulged with an opportunity even of seeking satisfaction 
as to his fitness for the work. 

After a man is once ordained, by whomsoever, and by what means so- 
ever it may have been done, we are all required to acknowledge and 
treat him as a minister of the gospel. If we are stationed in his vicini- 
ty, we are exposed to special difficulty. For while we are deprived of 
any influence in his settlement, and are utterly unable in any way to 
impeach his character, or bring him to trial for any fault, however 
flagrant, we are, ac ording to common expectation, to have fellowship 
with him more frequently and in a higher degree, than others. Things 
proceeding in this way, a corrupt church with an heretical minister, has 
opportunity to exert a corrupting influence upon the whole body of 
Congregational churches. The great evil here complained of is at 
present protected, and suffered to spread, without any effort for its 
cure. 

Heretofore it was the opinion of some in this Commonwealth, that a 
minister might be brought for trial before his own ehurch. But it is very 
apparent, and is now almost universally conceded that a single church is 
not a competent tribunal for the trial of a minister. This has become 
so extremely evident, that whatever opinions may have been entertain- 
ed, no church does really claim and exercise the right of censuring a 
pastor. So that we do in fact find ourselves in this difficulty, that me 



10 

have no regular, acknowledged and uniform method of trying a minister 
for an j violation of the laws of Christ. 

It is, then, of the highest moment, that a proper and effectual plan 
be adopted to regulate our conduct in this respect. At present, if 
ministers or churches refuse to hold fellowship with any one invested 
with the sacred office, however bad his character, they must do it on 
their own private responsibility, and generally to their own inconve- 
nience. Now for this matter to be left entirely to the discretion of in- 
dividuals is a great evil. For in such a case, they will be under the 
strongest temptations to swerve from the path of duty. And even if 
they are disposed to be faithful, it is probable that, by different judg- 
ments and different measures, they will embarrass each other, and 
increase the confusion of our ecclesiastical concerns. 

It may be supposed, that the want of a regular tribunal for the trial 
of a minister may be supplied, and that most of the evils above insisted 
on may be cured, by the provision of mutual councils. 

On this we remark, that no objection in our view can lie against the 
grand principle of mutual councils. Of the justice and importance of 
that principle we are fully convinced. And we wish it to be remem- 
bered, that the observations we are about to make relate, not to the 
propriety of mutual councils, but merely to th« present mode of consti- 
tuting them. The result, to which an attentive observation of facts, 
and a careful inquiry into the nature of the subject have conducted us, 
is this ; viz. that mutual councils, as they are now commonly constiiuicd t 
are by ?io means an adequate provision against the evils which urgently* 
call for a remedy. 

The general reasons of this result are the following. 

1. Mutual councils, in their present form, are not permanent bodies. 
To-day they exist, and are by the churches invested with authority ; 
to-morrow, both their authority and existence cease. Accordingly it 
is impossihle for them to exercise any stated and continued inspection 
over either ministers or churches. Such occasional, transient bodies, 
however useful they may sometimes be in composing particular dis- 
turbances, can afibrd no regular and permanent support to the friends 
of religious order, or do anything effectually to restrain offenders. 

2. Mutual councils, in present circumstances, may be evaded. Of- 
fenders may refuse to join in the choice of them, or to submit to their 
decisions. 

3. Mutual councils have in this Commonwealth no code of ecclesi- 
astical rules to govern either their own proceedings, or the conduct 
of contending parties in managing their cause. Nor is it determined 
among our churches in what cases councils are to be called, nor what 
is the extent of their jurisdiction, or the authority of their results. 

4. Mutual c vnuih, on the prevent plan, may be multiplied nithout 
limits. Difficulties may be so managed, that there shall be no end 
of strife. 

An ex parte council, resorted to as a substitute for a mutual council, 
is still more exceptionable. It will, from the very nature of the case, 
be regarded with suspicion, and can never have the power of termi- 
nating a contention. A second ex parte counsil may be called to 
contravene the decision of the first, and so on without end. 



11 

5. Mutual councils, at present, are constituted in a manner extremely 
unfavourable to impartiality, justice, and unanimity ; so that there is but 
Utile prospect of a decision which mill give satisfaction to the parties. 
Councils are chosen in a time of contention, when the minds of all con- 
cerned are liable to irritation, if not to bitterness. And what is more, 
they are chosen by the contending parties, and the offender, however 
exceptionable his character, and however flagrant his crimes, has an 
equal influence in constituting the tribunal with the other party. 
Doubtless he will make it his object to select men, who will be his 
particular friends and advocates, not those who will be judicious and 
impartial. Who can suppose that a council, so constituted, will be 
candid and thorough in their deliberations ? Or how can it be expected 
that their decision will bear such marks of wisdom and integrity, as 
to prevent suspicion, and lead to an end of the controversy ? As circum- 
stances are, it is by no means strange, that a trial before a mutual 
council is frequently nothing but a scene of animosity and strife, in 
which the parties, aided by two divisions of the council, come forward 
to contend for victory. 

The evil here complained of is like that which would be felt by civil 
society, if courts of justice, instead of being permanent bodies, or- 
ganized in a manner wisely calculated to exclude all injustice and 
respect of persons, should depend for their existence and continu- 
ance, on the will of disagreeing parties, and so should in fact be the 
offspring of self-interest, dishonesty, and strife. In the establish- 
ment and form of courts of criminal jurisprudence, we should deem 
it totally inadmissible, that either the accused or the accuser should 
have any immediate agency. We adhere to the same equitable principle 
in the discipline which is exercised by a church over its own members. 
An offender must stand for trial before the church, — a body which 
has a permanent existence, and is wholly independent of his will. 
What mischief would be occasioned by giving him the right of 
choosing one half of those who should constitute a tribunal for his 
trial, even if he should be confined in his choice to members of 
the church. But the door is at present open for all these evils and 
many more, when offending ministers are to be tried, or difficulties 
arising- between churches are to be brought before an ecclesiastical 
council. 

The foregoing are the principal evils, which this committee deem 
it important to notice. Who does not lament their existence, and 
look with earnest desire for the time of their removal ? Happy will 
it be for our churches, if, by a wise reflection on their own histo- 
ry from the beginning, and on events which are constantly taking 
place, they shall be able, through divine assistance, to obtain a 
remedy for the disorders which have so long afflicted them, and rise 
to christian purity, love, and order. 

It would be unreasonable to expect, that evils, so deep-rooted and 
numerous, can be removed at once. But we feel a persuasion that 
the time has arrived for important improvements. We indulge a 
pleasing hope, that measures may now be commenced, which will 
vindicate the rights of the churches, contribute at once to a sensi- 
ble melioration of our state, and effect, gradually indeed, but surely; 
the cure of our various disorders. 



With these views, and in pursuance of an object so momentous, 
your Committee beg leave to submit to the consideration of this 
General Association the following 

PLAN OF ECCLESIASTICAL ORDER. 

There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism ; one God and Father of 
all : and believers in Christ are all of one family, one brother-hood, 
one o-lorious and holy fellowship. Though this general fellowship, by 
the appointment of the adorable Head, and for great and wise pur- 
Doses, is divided into particular sections ; yet this arrangement is not 
intended to sever the unity of the Spirit, or to abate the sentiment, 
or hinder the exercise of mutual and extensive charity and commu- 
nion: but as the individual members of each particular church are 
united in one body ; so the particular churches should all be united 
in one federative and well ordered community. The vital principle 
of ecclesiastical order, discipline, and government is the pure spirit 
of generous brotherly love. It is to a defect of this spirit, that the 
lamented disorders, which have long abounded in our churches, and 
brought reproach upon Congregationalism, are chiefly to be imputed. 
Let this spirit become duly prevalent, and the interiour discipline 
of the particular churches will be easy and effective, and their exte- 
riour order, in relation one to another, will be unembarrassed and ir- 
reproachable ; the faithful word of the gospel will be held forth in 
its native purity and effulgence ; and our Ziou will become " beauti- 
ful as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, and terrible as an army with 
banners." 

As however, the unity, order, peace and prosperity of a particular 
church is produced, preserved, and promoted, by meam of an explicit 
covenant, formed on the principles of the gospel ; so the unity, order, 
peace and prosperity of the great federative community of churches 
should in like manner, be procured, preserved and promoted, by an 
explicit agreement, or compact, formed on the same benign and holy 
principles. Something of this sort is scarcely less obviously suitable 
and requisite tor the fellowship of the several churches, one with 
another, than for the mutual fellowship of the individual members in a 
particular church. Such an agreement or compact would constitute 
properly a Consociation of the churches. And such a Consociation the 
Platform of our churches decidedly favours : the principles for it were 
explicitly set forth, indistinct Propositions, adopted by the venerable 
Svnod. composed of the elders and messengers of the churches, and 
holden at Boston in the year 1662, The Propositions, here referred 
to, are the following, which were given as a brief answer to this ques- 
tion, Whether according to the word of God there ought to be a Conso- 
ciation of churches and what should be the manner of it ? 

I. Every church, or particular congregation of visible saints in gos- 
pel-order, being furnished with a Presbytery, at least with a teaching 
elder, and walking together in truth and peace, hath received from the 
Lord Jesus full power and authority ecclesiastical within itself regular- 
ly to administer all the ordinances of Christ, and is not under any other 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction whatsoever. For to such a church Chiist 



13 

hath given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that, what they bind or 
loose on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven, Mat. xvi. 19, and 
xviii. 17, 18. Elders are ordained in every Church, Acts xiv. 23; Tit. 
i. 5, and are therein authorized officially to administer in the word, 
prayer, sacraments and censures, Mat. xxviii. 19, 20; Acts vi. 4 ; 1 Cor. 
iv. 1, and v. 4, 12 ; Acts xx. 28 ; 1 Tim. v. 17, and iii. 5. — The reproving 
of the church of Corinth and of the Asian churches severally imports 
they had power each of them within themselves, to reform the abuses 
that were amongst them, 1 Cor. v. ; Rev. ii. T4, 20. Hence it follows 
that consociation of churches is not to hinder the exercise of this 
power, but by counsel from the word of Cod to direct and strengthen 
the same upon all just occasions. 

II. The churches of Christ do stand in a sisterly relation each to 
other, Cant. viii. 8 ; being united in the same faith and order, Eph. iv. 
5; Col. ii. 5, to walk by the same rule, Phil. iii. 16, in the exercise of 
the same ordinances for the same ends, Eph. iv. 11 — 13 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 
under one and the same political head, the Lord Jesus Christ, Eph. i, 
22, 23 ; and iv. 5 ; Rev. ii. 1 ; which union infers a communion suitable 
thereunto. 

III. Communion of churches is the faithful improvement of the gifts 
of Christ bestowed upon them for his service and glory, and their mu- 
tual good and edification, according to capacity and opportunity, 1 Pet. 
i v. 10, 1 1 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 4, 7, and x. 24 ; 1 Cor. iii. 21 , 22 ; Cant. viii. 9 ; 
Rom. i. 15; Gal. vi. 10. 

IV. Acts of communion of churches are such as these : 

1. Hearty care and prayer one for another, 2 Cor. xi. 28; Cant. viii. 
8 ; Rom. i. 9; Col. i. 9 ; Eph. vi. 18. 

2. To afford relief by communication of their gifts in temporal or spi- 
ritual necessities, Rom. xv. 26, 27 ; Acts xi. 22, 29 ; 2 Cor. viii. 1, 4, 14. 

3. To maintain unity and peace by giving account one to another of 
their publick actions, when it is orderly desired, Acts xi. 2 — 4, 18; 
Josh. xxii. 13, 21, 30 ; 1 Cor. x. 32 ; and to strengthen one another in 
their regular administrations; as in special by a concurrent testimony 
against persons justly censured, Acts xv. 41, and xvi. 4, 5; 2 Tim. iv. 
15; 2Thess.iii. 14. 

4. To seek and to accept help from and give help unto each other. 

1. In case of divisions and contentions whereby the peace of any 
church is disturbed, Acts xv. 2. 

2. In matters of more than ordinary importance, Prov. xxiv. 16, and 
xv. £2, as ordination, translation, and deposition of elders and such like, 
1 Tim. v. 22. 

3. In doubtful and difficult questions and controversies, doctrinal or 
practical, that may arise, Acts xv. 2, 6. 

4. For the rectifying maladministrations, and healing oferrours and 
scandals, that are unhealed among themselves, 3 John, ver. 9, 10 ; 
2Cor. ii. 6, 11 ; 1 Cor. xv. ; Rev. ii. 14—16; 2Cor. xii. 20, 21, and 
xiii. 2. Churches now have need of like help as well as churches then. 
Christ's care is still for whole churches as well as for particular persons ; 
and Apostles being now ceased, there remains the duty of brotherly 
love, and mutual care and helpfulness incumbent on churches, especial- 
ly elders for that end. 



14 

5. In love and faithfulness to take notice of the troubles and difficul- 
ties, errours and scandals of another church, and to administer help 
(when the case manifestly calls for it) though they should so neglect 
their own good and duty as not to seek it, Exod. xxiii. 4, 5 ; Prov. 
xxiv. 11, 12. 

6. To admonish one another when there is need and cause for it, and 
after due means with patience used, to withdraw from a church or pec- 
cant party therein, obstinately persisting inerrour or scandal, as in the 
Platform of discipline, (chap. 5, sect. 2, particularly 3,) is more at 
large declared, Gal. ii. 11, 14 ; 2 Thess. iii. 6 ; Rom. xvi. 17. 

V, Consociation of churches is their mutual and solemn agreement 
to exercise communion in such acts as aforesaid, amongst themselves, 
with special reference to those churches, whjch by providence are 
planted in a convenient vicinity, though with liberty reserved without 
offence, to make use of others, as the nature of the case, or the advan- 
tage of opportunity may lead thereunto. 

VI. The churches of Christ in this country having so good oppor- 
tunity for it, it is meet to be commended to them, as their duty thus to 
consoeiate. For 1. Communion of churches being commanded, and 
consociation being but an agreement to practise it, this must needs be 
a duty also, Psalm c>:ix. 106; Nehem. x. 28,29. 

2. Paul an Apostle sought with much labour the conference, concur- 
rence and right hand of fellowship of other Apostles ; and ordinary 
elders and churches have not less need each of other, to prevent their 
running in vain, Gal. ii. 2, 6, 9. 

3. Those general scripture rules teaching the need and use of coun- 
sel and help in weighty cases, concern all societies and politicks, eccle- 
siastical as well as civil, Prov. xi. 14, and xv. 22, and xx. 18, and xxiv. 
6; Eccl. iv. 9,10, 12. 

4. The pattern in Acts xv. holds forth a warrant for councils, which 
may be greater or lesser as the matter shall require. 

5. Concurrence and communion of churches in gospel times is not 
obscurely held forth in Isa. xix. 23 — 25; Zeph. iii, 9; 1 Cor. xi. 16, 
andxiv. 32, 36. 

6. There hath constantly been in these churches a profession of 
communion in giving the right hand of fellowship at the gathering of 
churches, and ordination of elders ; which importeth a consociation, 
and obligeth to the practice thereof. Without which we should also 
want an expedient and sufficient cure for emergent church difficulties 
and differences ; with the want whereof our way is charged, but un- 
justly, if this part of the doctrine thereof were duly practised. 

The principles of these Propositions are genuinely Congregational, 
and perfectly coincident, and tor substance, identical with those of the 
Platlbrni. The Propositions, indeed, were framed and adopted by 
those venerable Fathers of our churches, by whom, only fourteen 
years before, the Platform was formed and adopted, and for the very 
purpose of carrying the design of the Platform into more complete and 
salutary effect. They are therefore especially suitable to be adopted 
as the general basis of an actual Consociation, as a Consociation found- 
ed upon them, and consistent with them, can be no innovation ; but a 
recurrence to first principles, a restoration of our churches to their 
primitive order, and a guarantee to them of their original rights, liber- 
tics, and privileges. To carry these principles into good effect, nothing 



15 

more seems necessary, than for the churches explicitly to adopt, and 
duly to put in practice the following articles of Agreement. 

Art: 1. The Propositions of the Synod of 1662, recited in the fore- 
going preamble, are acknowledged as the general basis of Consocia- 
tion ; and as declaratory of the rights and privileges guarantied to the 
churches ; of the duties which they owe to each other, and of the pur- 
poses for which they are consociated. It will therefore be understood 
that it will not be competent to the Consociation " to hinder the ex- 
ercise of the power" delegated by Christ to each particular church in 
regard to its own interior administrations and concerns, w but by coun- 
sel from the word of God to direct and strengthen the same upon all 
just occasions :" and especially to direct and strengthen that holy fel- 
lowship which the holy churches, as churches, are to maintain and ex- 
ercise one towards another. 

Art. 2. Particular Consociations shall be formed within such limits 
as may be deemed most convenient and expedient. But though it may 
be the duty of every church to join in Consociation, and to do what it 
can to promote the great design of general fellowship and order; yet 
no church can rightfully be considered or treated as belonging to a 
consociation without its own voluntary consent, or restrained from re- 
gularly withdrawing itself from a consociation whenever it shall see 
fit to withdraw. 

Art. 3 CM" the churches comprised in each particular Consociation, 
the pastors, and lay delegates, will meet annually, and oftener as shall 
be agreed upon, or as special occasion may require ; attend to any bu- 
siness which may regularly come before them, and upon such religious 
exercises as shall be judged expedient ; and allow freedom of confer- 
ence, in the spirit of charity and order, upon subjects relating to the 
welfare of the churches. 

Art. 4. Each particular Consociation will have a Moderator and a 
Scribe chosen annually, and to continue in office until others are cho- 
sen ; and such other officers as shall be deemed requisite. 

Art. 5. Although in order to general union and harmony, this in- 
strument is to be the constitution of all the Consociations to be com- 
prized in the General body ; yet it will be competent for each Conso- 
ciation to adopt, for the regulation of its own proceedings, and for the 
direction and benefit of the churches in regard to their consociated 
stave, such rules and prescripts not repugnant to this constitution, as it 
shall judge advisable. 

Art. 6. With a view to prevent the animosities, difficulties, and dis- 
orders, which have too often been experienced, in regard to councils, 
on occasions of dissensions and strife, and to preserve and promote that 
holy and pleasant fellowship, which is the primary object of consocia- 
tion, and which should be sought with the most heedful attention, and 
the most tender care ; the consociated churches with their pastors, 
agree to regard and use. the Particular Consociation to which they be- 
long, as the proper Council, made mutual by this agreement, as to all 
parties concerned, to be applied to by the churches and individuals in 
the connexion, in all cases, in which the advice and assistance of a 
counril is requisite. Particularly do they agree to hold this as the 
proper body to hear and decide upon any complaint or allegation, 
touching ministerial character, against any minister belonging to it ; 
to acquit, or to find guilty — to advise, sustain, or depose, as. the case 



16 

may require. — It is to be understood, however, that any Particular 
Consociation may provide, upon principles and for reasons distinctly to 
be made known by theni for cases, in which it may not be expedient 
for all the members to be concerned, as also for cases in which it may 
be proper for others, not of its body, to be admitted to sit in the coun- 
cil. 

Art. 7. Any regular application from a church, for the advice or 
assistance of the Consociation, shall receive kind and prompt atten- 
tion. An application from an individual, or individuals, will also be 
kindly attended to, though not without the most guarded respect to 
the rights and privileges, the order and peace of the church or churches 
concerned. 

Art. 8. A complaint against a minister may be regularly exhibited 
either by the church of which he is pastor, or by a brother minister of 
the Consociation : but no complaint or accusation shall be received, 
but " before two or three witnesses." 

Art. 9. In all cases, the judgment of the Consociation is to be re- 
garded and treated with great respect by the churches ; and if, in any 
case, a church after due time taken for consideration, see cause to dis- 
sent, the reasons for dissenting shall be clearly and in a Christian man- 
ner, stated in writiug to the Consociation ; and the Consociation, hav- 
ing deliberately, and in the spirit of meekness, considered the reasons, 
will act as the case may require; either reversing the former judg- 
ment; or, if it be affirmed, yet with charity and forbearance, either al- 
lowing the church quietly to act agreeably to its own ultimate judg- 
ment, — or reviewing the case in union with one or two neighbouring 
Consociations to be convened together, in whole or by delegation ; or 
dealing with the church in the way of Christian admonition. But it is 
distinctly provided, that no consociated church shall be put out of 
communion, unless, after a first and second admonition duly adminis- 
tered, and after due time allowed for it to reform or to justify itself, it 
shall be solemnly and deliberately adjudged by the Consociation to 
have forfeited its rights as a sister church. 

Art. 10. A church, or a minister, considering itself, or himself, as 
aggrieved, will have the right of an appeal from the Consociation, to 
two or three other Consociations, to be convened, as provided for, in 
the next preceding article. Private church members are not included 
in this article; because the cases of private members are cognizable 
by the Consociation, only in so far as the churches to which they be- 
long are implicated. 

This Committee would farther suggest to the General Association 
the propriety of the following recommendation; viz. that when two 
or more Consociations are formed, measures be taken to promote such 
an understanding and consultation between them as will secure, as 
far as possible, a coincidence and uniformity with regard to the exer- 
cise and discipline, and all their modes of proceeding in their respec- 
tive connexions. 

.Signed, 

per order, 

Jedidiah Morse, Chairman. 



PREFACE. 
TO THE REVEREND JOSEPH LYMAN, D. D. 

MODERATOR OF A BODY, STYLING ITSELF " THE GENERAL ASSOCIATIOK 
OF MASSACHUSETTS PROPER." 

Reverend Sir, 

.No apology can be required for the liberty, which I 
take, of introducing your name to the publick in connexion 
with this solemn and interesting inquiry, because it appears 
by the proceedings of the association, of which you was 
moderator, that the subject of (his essay was explicitly re- 
commended to publick attention, wilh a very distinct inti- 
mation, that that body would proceed upon its own au- 
thority alone, to act definitively upon the subject at its 
next annual meeting. Unprecedented as may be this mode 
of legislation, in one of the most important concerns, which 
can affect society, it will appear to be the course contem- 
plated by your learned and venerable association, by the 
following vote of that body, published by your order in 
the Panoplist of August last. 

" Voted, to go into a free discussion of the subject of the 
" following motion — ' That the report of the committee ap- 
" pointed to inquire into the history of an original MS. doc- 
" ument, &c. &c. be printed, and copies sent to the several 
" associations in our connexion for the purpose of ascertain- 
" ing the publick sentiments respecting the plan ofecclesi- 



18 

" a3(ical order (herein presented, and that the subject be 
" called up at the next meeting of the general association.' 
" After discussion the motion was passed into a vote, and 
" Messrs. Morse, Codman, and Woods, appointed a com- 
" mittee for publishing the abovementioned report, with in- 
" structions to print it in connexion with the preceding 
" vote." 

It is obvious, that there is an appeal to the people on 
this topick, and it would be indecorous in them to disregard 
it. But although you, Sir, and your brethren of the asso- 
ciation may comprehend fully (he subject and ultimate 
bearings of that report, yet the above notice and vote will 
convey a very imperfect idea of it to the people at large, 
who have not the privilege of seeing the Panoplist. 

I shall therefore take the liberty to state generally what 
you, Sir, know to be true, and what I shall prove such in the 
course of my inquiry, that this report contains a project 
no less solemn and important, than that of abolishing in 
whole the old constitution, under which the Congre- 
gational churches have prospered during the last one hun- 
dred and sixty years, and of substituting in its place, a new 
system of problematical merit in itself, and directly oppos- 
ed to the constitution of this state, if not subversive of the 
rights and liberties of the Congregational churches. 

If such an important measure had been by any serious 
Christians deemed necessary for the cause of Christianity, 
it is difficult to perceive any reasons why it should have been 
introduced in a manner so exceptionable. There has al- 
ways existed a body in this state, of which you, Sir, and all 
your associates are members, familiar to the people, venera- 
ble from its antiquity, catholick in its organization, embrac- 
ing all the Congregational clergy, and entitled to the respect 
of all congregationalists — the Convention of Congregational 
ministers. It does not readily occur to us, why a certain 



19 

portion of (he Congregational clergy, in contempt of the 
known opinions of this ancient and venerable assembly, 
should propose an entire new code of ecclesiastical discipline 
of their own authority, unless it arises from the conviction, 
that such a measure would be, as it has been, rejected by 
that body. 

The right of those, who think themselves more pure than 
their brethren, to separate, and form new associations, can- 
not be questioned ; nor shall we deny to them the pretext 
of all innovators, that of reforming, rather than changing ; 
but they must permit us to doubt the expediency as well as 
consistency of such conduct in men, whose professed ob- 
ject is union. 

If the ancient councils of the church are to be considered 
as any authority, (as it seems much reliance is placed on 
some of their dogmas, in matters of faith,) it is to be regret- 
ted, that in this instance their example had not been follow- 
ed. To them were invited prelates of all opinions, without 
distinction, unless when for fraudulent or ambitious pur- 
poses a selected council, like a packed jury, was sum- 
moned. 

In what manner even your partial associations have been 
constituted we are not advised. Whether in violation of 
the constitution, the Church members alone have ventured 
to elect and instruct delegates on these weighty affairs, or 
whether the whole society, at meetings duly warned, deputed 
their pastors to represent them ; or whether, as some peo- 
ple have said, I hope untruly, the ministers alone have un- 
dertaken to form an association and to assume such powers, 
I am equally ignorant. It is however apparent by the vote 
above cited, that although you profess, Sir, to call for 
the publick sentiments, yet you restrict this appeal to 
the " several associations in your connexion. " Whether 



20 

jou think that they alone have a right lo express any opin- 
ions or entertain any sentiments respecting it, or whether 
you consider the separation already effected, and the new- 
Church already organized, we are not informed. 

If your object be simply to form a new system of Church 
government for that limited portion of the congregational 
churches who are represented in your body, it is in effect and 
should be entitled " A scheme for effecting the secession 
of certain churches from the old Congregational church, 
and the establishment of a new form of church government 
for the seceders, under the title of the Massachusetts Grand 
Association." 

You would do well to consider whether your plan will 
have the smallest practical operation. Whether it can re- 
strain " heresy," prevent the settlement of " corrupt he- 
retical ministers" protect the orthodox clergy from " slan- 
der" and promote " union" in the church ; all which 
objects are professed by your committee. 

If the courts of law cannot uphold you ; if a restless ad- 
vocate for religious freedom, a friend to the old independent 
form of government, should appeal from your consociation 
to a mutual council, and the offer of such council should 
be rejected ; if he, with his associates, should then proceed 
to appoint an ex parte council, and they should recommend 
the dissolution of the compact between the minister and his 
parish, and if this man should have sufficient influence to 
procure a majority of the legal voters in the parish for a 
dismissal, and if in such a case the court should hold the 
pastor regularly dismissed, which they most unquestionably 
will do, what will become of the consociations ? 

They may thunder out their anathemas in vain. They 
will be like those which the Pope issued against Henry the 
VIII. the object of contempt and ridicule. Of what 
benefit then, reverend Sir, can be this attempt to in- 



21 

novate in the church ? Is it politick to discover the will, 
when it is morally certain, that you will not have the power 
to tyrannize ? 

I confess to you, Sir, I can perceive in this measure only 
the germ of new and scandalous dissensions, afflictive and 
disgraceful to the Church of Christ. The old associations 
will be brought into constant collision with the new, and be- 
ing sustained by truth, the constitution and the laws, they 
will intvitably triumph. However your devotees may be 
kept some time in ignorance, they will finally understand 
their rights, and on the first cause of offence they will fly off 
and appeal to the old associations. 

I am happy in addressing this preface to a man whom I 
would fain believe, from his character, to be incapable of 
abetting the designs of the projectors of (his scheme. How^ 
ever ardent you may be in the support of your principles, 
I cannot bring myself to think, that you would promote a 
measure inconsistent with the great principles of the con- 
stitution, subversive of the religious liberties of the people, 
and tending directly to the most dreadful anarchy in the 
Church. 

A LAYMAN, 



AN INQUIRY, &c 

In pursuing the proposed inquiry, I shall principally ad- 
dress my remarks to Laymen, who constitute the great mass 
of society. 

Whatever may be the benefits, or evils, of the proposed 
change, the layman must principally feel them. It is for 
the interest of the great body of the people, that all reli- 
gious establishments are formed, and they ought to have 
for their object the happiness, temporal and eternal, of lay- 
men. The Clergy are but the Angels or Ministers of God 
to make known and spread his revelations, and all the in- 
stitutions of religion have respect rather to those who are 
to be taught, than those who are the teachers. 

In this age, it will be readily admitted, that any project 
whose tendency is only to aggrandize the Clerical order, 
without promoting, in a correspondent degree, piety and 
virtue among the people, should be the object of distrust 
and jealousy. 

Any system, which tends to restore those hierarchical es- 
tablishments which were calculated to exalt the clergy, who 
ought only to be the instructers of their brethren, over the 
laity ; establishments, which retained the Christian world, 
for so many ages, in a state of servitude to the privileged 
erders of the Clergy ; must be injurious to true religion. 

It cost the lives of some millions of men to vindicate the 
rights of conscience, and to free the Christian community 
from the shackles by which it had been so long restrained. 



23 

Experience has taught us, that no men abuse power more 
readily than Ecclesiasticks. It is probably owing even to 
their virtues in excess. Secluded in some degree by their 
functions from the common intercourse of the world, ac- 
customed to consider their offices and doctrines of para- 
mount importance, feeling an accountability to God, and 
therefore holding in small estimation the esteem and opin- 
ions of their fellow men ; yet, liable like other men to 
passions and frailties, from which their purity and princi- 
ples cannot effectually guard them, they have in all ages 
mistaken, and from the constitution of human nature they 
probably will for ever continue to mistake, their own pre- 
judices and opinions, their passions and even their vices, for 
inspiration and duty. Hence they have been often seen in 
the name of a just and benevolent God, and under the pre- 
tence of promoting the cause of true religion, to adopt 
such principles, and to exercise such intolerant and despo- 
tick powers, as no men, acting from less honourable motives, 
would have dared to attempt. 

Yes. There are no crimes which can be compared to 
those, which a mistaken view of Religion has induced men 
to commit. 

This truth, which every page of history for many cen- 
turies confirms, and which so far from derogating from the 
truth and weight of the Christian system, serves only to 
confirm it ; since it has successfully withstood these injuries 
of its friends, more fatal than those which its enemies could 
have inflicted : this important truth seems now to be gen- 
erally acknowledged in the civilized world, and the effect 
of it has been to control as far as possible the power of the 
clergy, leaving to them only, undisturbed, their rightful 
province, that of Instructers and Teachers. 

In this country the experiment has been fairly made. 
We have seen a body of Christian instructers, who have for 



24 

nearly two centuries, gone in and out before tLeir people- 
wilh no other power or influence, than what they have de- 
rived from the purity and sanctily of their lives, and the 
weight and im[ orlance of the doctrines which they taught. 
Where is the man who will have the hardihood to say, 
that this people, (I allude to those portions of the country 
which have enjoj r ed a stated ministry ;) where is Ihe man 
who will affirm, that the moral and religious habits of our 
country are not superiour to those of any nation in which 
the Clergy enjoy the dangerous powers which Dr. Morse, 
in his report, recommends the Clergy to seize and exercise ? 
Shall we then, with all this experience in favour of our 
system, consent to exchange it for one, in which the most 
busy and intriguing, the restless, factious and ambitious 
among the clergy shall have a right to settle the articles of 
faith ; determine who shall, and who shall not be ordained, 
" lind guilty, sustain, and depose ?" 

Such alarming powers are in fact proposed, not for adop- 
tion by the people, but for assumption by the New Massa- 
chusetts Association. 

The legality of such an assumption is the principal ob- 
ject of my Inquiry. It is no less solemn a question, than 
whether on the most important of all subjects, the People 
have, or have not any rights ; or whether the clergy have 
a right to assume the power of dictating to them, not only 
in matters of faith and discipline, but in the election and 
deposition of their pastors. 

I shall divide this essay into Chapters, for the more con- 
venient examination of the various branches of the subject. 
Chapter 1st. The principles and practice of our an- 
cestors in this country on this subject. 
In Chapter 2c?, I shall consider, what authority can be 
found for these extraordinary ponvrs, this ecclesias- 
tical jurisdiction proposed by Dr. Morse, in the 
history of the Early Church. 



25 

Chapter 3. The professed motives for abolishing the 
Cambridge Platform, and substituting this coercive 
system in its place. 

Chapter 4. The real but secret motives for this inno- 
vation. 

Chapter 5. What are the rights of the People of Mas- 
sachusetts with regard to Religious establishments, as 
fixed by the Constitution, and by Judicial decisions. 



CHAPTER I. 

The Principles and Practice of our Ancestors on this 
Subject. 

The origin of Congregational, or, as they were at first 
called, Independent Churches, is too recent to admit of 
controversy. We have no occasion to resort to learned 
divines or doctors to settle this point. History has within 
this period too much certainty ; there have been too many 
rival writers, and the documents are too well preserved, to 
leave any doubt upon so plain a question. 

When the English Church was separated from the Ro- 
mish communion, it retained all the features of the hie- 
rarchy, as to the external government of the Church. 

The king at first claimed to be the Spiritual head, and 
exercised as oppressive and despotick a power as that 
which the successors of St. Peter had done. It is difficult 
to ascertain, with the aid of the best historians, and the au- 
thentick documents of the sixteenth and seventeenth cen 
turies, whether this religious despotism, or the tyrannical 
4 



26 

measures of the Tudor and Stuart families contributed most 
to the disturbances which convulsed Great Britain during 
those ages. It is however certain, that the ecclesiastical 
usurpations naturally co-operated with other oppressions in 
producing the civil wars, and were almost the sole cause of 
the glorious revolution in 1688. 

Tiie first efforts against the hierarchy were made by 
the Presbyterians. This sect, like most reformers, and 
innovators, did not content themselves with abolishing 
the hierarchy, but like the dissenters from the Romish 
Church, ihey were so much under the influence of their 
early prejudices, that they could form no ideas of tolerance 
in religion. They considered not only that trulh must be 
single, but that the Church had an exclusive right to 
interpret the scriptures, and prescribe what is Truth, and 
how and what men should believe. 

They adopted precisely the errour which had led to all 
the usurpations of the Church of Rome. As the Church 
of England, at its separation from the Romish see, had 
presumptuously arrogated to itself all the powers of which 
it had stripped the Roman Pontiff, under pretence that they 
were unscriptural ; so the Presbyterians, in their turn, who 
derived both their hostility to the hierarchy and their in- 
tolerant principles from the Scottish covenanters, insisted 
upon the same Jus divinum in favour of their upstart 
Presbytery, and imposed fetters as galling as Gregory the 
VIII. in the summit of his power, would have dared to 
impose. 

But the English nation Was in a state of ferment too great 
to submit to such servitude. They felt, as we now feel, 
that if they must be subjected in matters of conscience 
to human arrogance and power, they should prefer an 
authority more distant, more venerable by its antiquity, 
niore learned, more impartial, than that of the Plebeian 



27 

Presbyters who had deposed the Prelates only to tyrannize 
in their siead. 

A new sect arose, first under the name of Brownists ; 
which denomination becoming unpopular, they assumed that 
of Independents, and when they emigrated to this country, 
they adopted the more unexceptionable and less odious 
name of Congregationalists. 

That this sect were the founders of the Congregational 
Churches in New-England, will not be disputed. Their 
characters and principles are t\}e theme of daily panegyrick, 
by the same persons who are now about to destroy that part 
of their fabrick which was most worthy of commendation, I 
mean the entire equality and independence of the Churches. 

These sectaries, the founders of our Churches, denied 
all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. They maintained the per- 
fect equality as well as independence of all the Churches. 
They had, at first, no associations of any kind. When the 
Church of England was restored, and they became again 
the subjects of persecution, they fled to this country, hoping 
they might find in the wilderness, what Europe would not 
afford them, an entire and absolute freedom of Religious 
opinion. 

But it is not in human nature to be free from ambition, 
nor even to be consistent always wifh one's own principles. 
Among these strenuous asserters of Christian freedom, there 
soon arose, as there will ever arise, ambitious and intriguing 
divines. These persecuted men became persecutors, and 
their conduct towards the Quakers, in the early settlement 
of this country, is a blot which can never be effaced. 

God of his infinite mercy grant, that we may not leave a 
blot of a still deeper dye, by the adoption of the proposed 
system, in direct opposition to the principles of our 
Church ! 



28 

Soon after the settlement of our country, a synod, com- 
posed of clergy and laity, established, not a system of 
Church Government, for that their principles rejected, but 
an harmonious plan of settling differences in the Church. 
This is well known by the name of the Cambridge Plat- 
form ; and so wisely and judiciously was it framed, that it 
has survived all our civil convulsions, our municipal and 
political revolutions. This plan bears no analogy to the 
different schemes of Ecclesiastical tyranny, which ambition 
and cunning have introduced, and which ignorance and su- 
perstition have permitted. Its authority is chiefly moral* 
It has scarcely any sanctions but sentiment and opinion. 
Its powers are purely advisory. It provides for a mutual 
council in case of differences between a pastor and his peo- 
ple. This is simply an arbitration justificatory, but not 
obligatory. It settles the point of character. It gives the 
Pastor a right to go, or the People to dismiss, without vio- 
lating the proper duties and relations of Christians to each 
other. In case of a refusal of a mutual council, the party 
complaining may elect a council ex parte, that is, without 
the other. The result of this last council (for our ancestors 
were too jealous of power to call it a decree) is merely 
recommendatory. It dissolves no ties. It can impose no 
penalties. It can neither sustain or depose. Every thing 
is still referred back to the source of all power, the People 
of the Parish. If neither party should adopt the advice 
of the Council, it is a mere dead letter. For example, 

If a Parish should have complained against a Pastor for 
heretical opinions, and the Council should decide them to 
be such, and therefore recommend a dismission, still, if the 
Parish should afterwards be converted to the opinions of 
the Pastor, or should be ashamed of their illiberality in 
prosecuting him, his Pastoral character and rights would be 
undisturbed. 



29 

This is the very complaint of the persecutors. " There 
is no inquisition, no coercive power ; and how can a Church 
flourish if some of the pious men have no means of grati- 
fying their passions against their personal enemies V 9 Such 
however is the present condition of our Churches. They 
are in every sense independent. No human power can 
change this system but by violence. 

It ought not however to be denied, that there have been 
two attempts to overset this peaceable plan of Church 
government. 

One by Dr. Mather and others in 1706, which was not suf- 
fered to go into effect, on account of its being deemed hostile 
to the liberties of the Church, as he himself admits; the other 
by Dr. Morse, a few years since, in the convention of minis- 
ters, which was thrown out, as I am told, with pretty strong 
expressions of general disgust. Not discouraged, this inde- 
fatigable man, with others, finding the convention of the 
whole clergy unfavourable to his views, has now called a 
Caucus of his own party, with the design of forcing or 
imposing upon the people, as I conceive, an entirely new 
form of Church government. 

Before I proceed to consider this project, which is the 
subject of the third chapter, I will cite one or two among 
fifty authorities, to shew that my description of the senti- 
ments of the Brownists, Independents, or Congregational- 
ists, is correct. 

In the British Encyclopedia, revised in this country, and 
reprinted by Dobson, we have the following account of the 
" Brownists." 

"The whole power of admitting and excluding members, 
with the decision of all controversies, was lodged in the 
brotherhood. As the vote of the brotherhood made a 
man a minister, and gave him authority to preach the 
word and administer the sacraments, so the same power 



30 

could discharge him from the office, and reduce him (o a 
mere layman again ; and as they maintained the bounds of 
a church to be no greater, than what could meet together in 
one place, and join in one communion, so the power of their 
officers was prescribed within these limits ; in a word, even/ 
church in a Brownist model is a body corporate, having full 
power to do every thing which the good of the society re- 
quires, without being accountable to any classis, synod, 
convocation, or other jurisdiction whatever." " Most of 
their discipline has been adopted by the Independents." 

Indeed, I may add, they were in fact the same church, 
though they altered the name on account of Brown's 
apostasy. 

The settlers at Plymouth were Brownists, as Dr. Belknap 
assures us in the life of Robinson, though for the aforesaid 
reason they altered the name. Dr. Mosheim's account of 
the Brownists essentially agrees with the authority above 
cited. The publisher of his works states expressly that 
the Brownists were the founders of New England. 

But a much more perfect account of the religion of our 
ancestors may be found in the Encyclopedia ; title, Inde- 
pendents. 

It is there stated, that Brown was the founder of the pre- 
sent sect of Congregationalists, though his system was sof- 
tened by his successors, of whom the chief place is given 
to the venerable Robinson. 

That pious man's definition of a Christian Church seems 
to settle the question, as to the legality or propriety of conso- 
ciations with judicial powers, unless it is intended openly to 
renounce the Congregational principle. It is " Coetum 
quemlibet p articular em esse totam, integrum, et perfectam 
ecclesiam ex siiis partitas constantem immediate et hide- 
pendenter (quoad alias ecclesias) sub ipsoChristo." " That 
exevy separate christian society is a whole, entire and per* 



31 

feet church, holding its authority (at least so far as respects 
other churches) immediately and independently from 
Christ himself." 

The two following are said, by these impartial and ortho- 
dox editors, to be the distinguishing features of Congrega- 
tionalism ; upon which we may exclaim, " How has the gold 
become dim .' !" 

" 1. The Independents reject the use of all creeds and 
confessions drawn up by fallible men, requiring of their 
teachers no other test of orthodoxy than a declaration of 
their belief in the Gospel of Jesus, and their adherence to 
the Scriptures as the rule of their faith." 

This was written thirty years ago, probably by an Eng- 
lish divine. It is a true representation of Congregational- 
ism. At this day Dr. Porter, Mr. Channing and others, 
are abused for maintaining, what this learned work declares 
to be a distinguishing feature of Congregationalism. 

The second distinctive tenet of Congregationalism is, 
"That they lay no stress upon the rite of ordination, accord- 
ing to the Episcopal or even Presbyterian forms. That a 
minister may be set apart and authorized to preach by any 
christian society." 

Among the arguments, which this work recites, as used 
by the Congregationalists in favour of their principles, are 
the following, which are pertinent to our present question, 
and shew the unscriptural nature of Dr. Morse's new conso- 
ciations. " That the word w*wwi* which we translate 
Church, is always used in scripture to signify either a sin- 
gle congregation, or the place (or building) where a single 
congregation meets." Sundry texts in support of this con- 
struction are then cited, and the writer proceeds to say, 
" Besides these, the Independents can find no other de- 
scription of a church in the New Testament; not a trace of 
a diocese or Presbytery consisting of several congregations 
subject to one jurisdiction." 



32 

" The number of disciples in Jerusalem was very great, 
before they were dispersed by the persecution, in which St. 
Paul bore so great a part, yet they are never mentioned as 
forming distinct assemblies, but as one assembly meeting in 
one place. After the dispersion, as they could never meet 
in one place, they are never called a church, or one church, 
but the churches of Judea, &c. Hence the Independent 
concludes, that in Jerusalem, church and congregation were 
of the same import." In the same manner the work from 
which these quotations are made, proceeds to adduce the 
arguments of the Independents against all separate power in 
the elders, as distinct from the people of the congregation,and 
against all jurisdiction of one or more churches over each 
other. The arguments are very satisfactory, to which our 
readers are referred. It is sufficient for our purpose that 
we have performed what we undertook, viz. to shew, what 
were the principles of our ancestors in this country, the 
early and true Congregationalists, on this subject of Church 
government. 

It has been proved, that the essence of Congregational- 
ism is the perfect independence of each separate church, 
and the denial of any judicial authority in any body beyond 
or without each separate society. 

To say, that you wish to promote the prosperily of the 
church, meaning the Congregational Churches, by adopting 
such a consociation as is proposed, is as absurd as it would 
be to say, that you are in favour of civil liberty, and a Re- 
publican government, with a despotick hereditary emperour 
at its head, or ©f Protestantism, but under absolute submis- 
sion to the see of Rome. 



33 



CHAPTER If. 

The author ity for these extraordinary powers and Ecclesi* 
astical Jurisdiction, now claimed by Dr. Morse, to bt 
found in the history of the Early Church, 

I shall select as competent authority on this point, Dr. 
Mosheim, because no man will deny his orthodoxy, and 
few will be disposed to question his learning and impartiali- 
ty. It is not expedient to embarrass our brethren of the 
laity with numerous quotations. It will be sufficient for 
their satisfaction, to cite one ecclesiastical historian of un- 
doubted credit, who refers his readers to his authorities for 
every assertion. 

Dr. Mosheim affirms, " that neither Christ himself, nor 
any of his Apostles, have commanded any thing clearly and 
expressly concerning the external form of the church, and 
the precise method according to which it should be govern- 
ed. From this we may infer, that the regulation of this was 
in some measure to be accommodated to the times, and left 
to the wisdom of " the chief rulers of the stale and church.' 9 
— See Moshehn's Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p. 97. 

If this proposition be true, there exists no authority in the 
state of Massachusetts, to establish any precise form of 
church government, or to give to any one church or num- 
ber of churches authority over any single church. For our 
State rulers are expressly prohibited by the 3d article of 
the constitution from so doing, and as to " Chief Rulers" in 
the church, we have never had any in this state. 

The church as a general term, embraces every sect of 
christians, whether Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Pres- 
byterians, Baptists, Methodists, Universalists or Qua- 
kers ; for our laws recognise all these sects expressly as 
equally members of the Christian church. 



34 

Does any man deny this proposition ? 

Let him consider, that, by our constitution, any man is 
exempted from attending, or paving towards Ihe support 
of any minister of any one of the aforesaid persuasions, 
or sects, however regularly settled- in his town, provided 
he cannot conscientiously attend upon his ministry, and 
provided there be any other minister of a different persua- 
sion, on whose ministry he does attend. This is a consti- 
tutional provision which cannot be abrogated, and which 
proves the absolute equality of all Christian churches. ^ 

To this catholick principle in our constitution and laws, 
there is but one exception, and that is contrary to the genius 
of our government, and still more so to the spirit of our reli- 
gion, the exclusion of the Roman Catholicks from the pro- 
tection which others enjoy. That a Catholick should be 
obliged to support a Protestant teacher as well as his own, 
is a most grievous imposition. 

But it may be said, that whatever the people, or the civil 
ruler may have done, the Scriptures are paramount to them 
all, and that the chief rulers of the church derive their 
authority from God. 

It is for this reason I shall cite further passages from Dr. 
Mosheim, as to what the Scripture and apostolick usage 
have settled on these matters. 

* In the case of Mr. Murray while at Gloucester, the supreme court 
held, that to entitle him to recover he must be a settled minister. But 
what that settlement must be, and that it does not require an ordination 
by any presbytery, nor the aid of any other churches in that ceremony, 
is plain by the case of Freeman and the wardens of King's Chapel, vs. 
Pelham. The Reverend Dr. Freeman wa? ordained in a manner truly 
apostolick. He was set apart for the ministry by the wardens of his 
own church, pursuant to a vote of the whole society. What an absur- 
dity then, to talk of the absolute necessity of a Consociation to license 
ministers, to settle the mode of ordinations, and to exclude improper 
men from the ministry ! .' 



35 

In connexion with the above quotation, Dr. Mosheiui 
proceeds to say, " If however it is true, that the Apostles 
" acted by divine inspiration, and in conformity with the 
" commands of their blessed master, and this no Christian 
" can call in question ; then it follows, that that form of 
" government which the primitive Churches borrowed from 
" that of Jerusalem, the first christian assembly established 
" by the Apostles themselves, must be esteemed of divine 
" authority. But from this it would be wrong to conclude, 
" tlmi such a form is immutable; for this a great variety 
" of events might render impossible. 

" In those early times, every Christian Church consisted 
" of the people, their leaders and the ministers or deacons, 
" and these indeed belong essentially to every religious so- 
" ciety. Tiie People were undoubtedly the first in au- 
" thority, for the Apostles showed by their own example 
" that nothing of moment was to be carried on or determin- 
" ed without the consent of the assembly ; and such a 
" method of proceeding was both prudent and necessary, 
" in those critical times." 

" It was therefore the assembly of the People which 
" chose their own rulers and teachers, or received them by 
" a free consent, when recommended by others." " The 
" same people rejected or confirmed by their suffrages the 
11 laws proposed by their rulers to the assembly ; excom- 
" municated profligate and unworthy members of the 
" Church, restored the penitent to their privileges, passed 
" judgment upon the different subjects of controversy and 
*' dissension that arose in their community, examined and 
" decided the disputes which happened between the eldem 
" and deacons, and, in a word, exercised all the authority 
" which belongs to such as are invested with sovereign 
u power." 

See Mosheim, Vol. I. p. 97, 98. 



36 

Thus, according to an orthodox Doctor of the Church, 
the people were in the Apostolick days the sole depositaries 
of sovereign power in all Church matters. The reason he 
assigns for this deference to the People applies with more 
force now, and that is, "that the People purchased this 
privilege by supporting the teachers, the inferiour officers 
and the Poor." 

But how principles and practices are changed since the 
days of the Apostles! By imperceptible encroachments, 
the people in some countries have been stripped of all 
power ; and the teachers, who were originally subject to the 
People, have become their masters, and keep the whole 
religious community in absolute subjection. Our ancestors 
threw off this yoke and resumed their primitive authority, 
that which the Apostles gave or allowed to them. 

Dr. Morse, out of pure love, as he pretends, to the 
Church, is now preparing to slip on this yoke again. The 
proposed plan of Consociation annihilates the power of the 
people, considered as distinct from the Church, at a stroke, 
they not being so much as mentioned from the beginning to 
the termination of it. 

Dr. Mosheim does not leave this question here : in page 
105 of the same volume he says, " The Churches in those 
early times were entirely independent, none of them sub- 
ject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each one governed by- 
its ejsan own laws. For though the churches 
founded by the Apostieshzd this particular deference shewn 
to them, that they were consulted in doubtful and difficult 
cases ; yet they had no juridical authority, no sort of supre- 
macy, nor the least right to exact laws for them." Now in- 
deed Dr. Morse's church, though not founded by an apostle 
that we have ever heard of, arrogates to itself the juridical 
authority, a supremacy over other churches, by adopting a 
Dew constitution, by which the whole legislative and judi- 
cial power is taken from each separate church, and given to 



37 

the Consociation. I shall consider hereafter the proposed 
assent of each church and its illusory character. 

Our old and venerable Congregational system was pre- 
cisely like that, which Dr. Mosheim says was appointed 
and practised upon by the Holy Apostles. It is this which 
they propose to destroy. 

Dr. Mosheim adds, in the same paragraph, " Nothing is 
" more evident than the perfect equality which reigned 
" among the primitive churches ; nor does there even ap- 
11 pear the smallest trace of that Association of provincial 
" churches, from which councils and metropolitans derive 
" their origin." Mosheim, Vol. i. p. 105. 

Until this learned orthodox divine shall have been confut- 
ed by those who procured the publication of his works here, 
we may assume it as a settled proposition, that in the apos- 
tolick age, the People^ that is, the professing christians of 
every distinct church and society, enjoyed and exercised 
all ecclesiastical powers, even those of settling questions 
of faith and disputes in the church, as well as of electing 
and dismissing their teachers — that there were no associ- 
ations of churches, no councils, no claim of judicial power 
or supremacy in any bodies of christians. 

If, then, while the apostles were upon earth, who must be 
supposed to have best known the will of our Saviour and 
the purposes of God, no such jurisdiction was ever claimed, 
what pretence can now exist, that such dangerous powers 
should be confided to fallible and erring men, stimulated by 
passions, uncontrolled by apostolick authority, and unaid- 
ed by divine inspiration ? The arguments and reasons in 
favour of exact conformity and uniform discipline were in- 
finitely stronger in the apostolick age than they are at the 
present day. 

The Church was surrounded with able, learned and pow- 
erful foes, who were ready to seize upon any dissensions as 



38 

to matters of faith or discipline, in order to bring Christiani- 
ty into discredit. There existed also in that age, an au- 
thority, to which an appeal might be made, entitled to the 
highest respect, viz. the Apostles themselves. 

Yet these luminaries of the Church gave no encourage- 
ment to the erection of general tribunals for the correction 
of abuses, and for the establishment of uniform rules and dis- 
cipline in the Church. 

If we are asked, to what sort of connexion the apostles 
alluded, in the frequently repealed phrases of the " fellow- 
ship of the churches," we answer, an intercourse of kind- 
ness, of hospitality, of advice ; but more especially, in that 
age of persecution, of notice when dangers approached, 
and of generous aid when persecutions prevailed. 

In fact a strict and intimate intercourse of the churches 
might have been at that time necessary, but has now become 
utterly useless. 

In the present day, it is difficult to see any reason why 
one or more churches, in combination, should exercise an 
authority in matters of faith and discipline over other 
churches. We have no longer any enemies to encounter in 
the European or American world. The last madman, 
Paine, who attacked Christianity, surely did not produce any 
effect which would require an intimate union of the churches. 
The whole civilized world professes to be Christian. It is 
to be sure divided into an hundred sects. There is no 
earthly tribunal to decide which is right. If you once de- 
part from the scriplural and apostolick principle, that each 
church forms an whole, and has a right to interpret the 
scriptures for itself, it is difficult to see any point at which 
you can stop, short of an universal head, the authority 
claimed by the Bishop of Rome. Shall we, the Inde- 
pendents, be ready to admit the authority of the Arch- 
bishops and convocations of Great Britain I And if we are, 



39 

will the Baptists admit the infallibility of our Consociations ? 
Or will even the haughty Presbyters, though they join the 
orthodox in denouncing those who differ from them as her- 
eticks, will they submit to Dr. Morse's Consociation ? 

The only pretence for these tribunals is, the Papal or Ro- 
mish one of conformity. But such conformity can in this 
case reach but one sect, the Congregationalisfs. Tie 
others will still go on in what we call their errours. It is not 
therefore the church of Christ which these gentlemen 
would reform and render uniform. It is a single sect ; and 
the only consequence would be to break that sect into two 
or more divisions, without effecting the object at which 
they aim. I trust that these reverend gentlemen are not so 
far gone, as to contend, that the Congregarionalists alone 
are the church of Christ ; and that they will admit some 
few of the other sects to a small participation in the bless- 
ings of the gospel. 

This however is not the place to press these considera- 
tions. My object in this chapter was simply to shew, as I 
believe I have done, that the early church admitted of 
none of these combinations, associations, or consociations 
to measure, restrain, and limit faith ; and to forge and invent 
causes of heresy, and of confusion and controversy, in the 
church. I have cited but one authority, but that is ortho- 
dox, and venerable, and published and circulated in this 
country by the very authors of this system, which Dr. Mo- 
sheim declares to have been unknown in the apostolick age. 

If we are asked, where is the evil of such conspiracies, 
combinations and consociations, even if not authorized by 
the example of the apostles ? I answer, first, lhat if they 
are not authorized by scripture or by law, there ought to 
be historical and practical proofs of their utility, other- 
wise they ought not to be adopted. 

But, 2dly. That all such associations and assumptions of 
power have invariably terminated in the most detestable of 



46 

all despotisms. They are in their nature an oligarchy, or 
government of the few. As their power is ill-founded, it 
can be preserved only by violence. These considerations 
will be more fully developed in the following pages. 



CHAPTER III. 

The avowed motives of the professed change from Con- 
gregationalism to Consociationism, (if I may be allow- 
ed to coin a new word for a new thing.) 

It could not be expected, that learned Divines would 
propose an entire revolution in the church, without bring- 
ing to their aid all the talents and learning of their party. 
It accordingly appears, that this great body had this topick 
under consideration for a year, and committed it to some 
of their most skilful scribes, to invent and digest arguments 
for such an innovation. We are authorised to suppose, 
therefore, that Dr. Morse's report contains their strongest 
reasons in favour of this measure : this we shall now pro- 
ceed to examine. 

The first remark to which this report gives rise, is the 
conscVwsness of its authors, that it could not stand upon 
its own merits. A manuscript of Dr. Cotton Mather is 
brought forward with as much parade, as if he had been an 
apostle. This so exceedingly resembles the monasfick ar- 
tifices of the dark ages, of hunting up the barbarous produc- 
tions of some canonized saint, to authorize some new usur- 
pation, or add sanctions to some ancient ones, which were 
not respectable in themselves, that it excites our jealousy, 
if not our contempt. 

If our church government be in itself so radically defec- 
tive, as this committee pretend, if it be that rotten, misera- 



41 

ble, and ineffectual system, which they would shew it to be, 
if 'hese evils ha\e been perceived from the days of Dr. Cot- 
ton Mai her to the present time, the fact must be too well 
known to all the Christian societies, to require Dr. Ma- 
ther's authority in support of it. 

If these defects were not so generally known, and were 
perceptible only to the enlightened members of this asso- 
ciation, still, if they exist, they must be susceptible of 
demonstration, and the duty of the committee was rather 
to state, and prove them, than to rely on this obsolete au- 
thority. 

But the greatest difficulty is, that we can perceive no 
grounds for this unlimited deference to Dr. Mather. He was 
respectable for a very credulous age, and he partook, as 
largely as any man, of the imperfection of the times. But 
what authority ought such a man to enjoy, in a state of so- 
ciety, in which his works can scarcely be read without a 
smile at his weakness and prejudices ? We have nearly 
one hundred times as many learned men at present, as there 
were in that period. 

The second remark we would make on this document, 
which seems to be the citadel of the revolutionists, is, that 
the opinion of Dr. Cotton Mather, according to his own con- 
fession, had no weight with his contemporaries. It is true, 
we have the assertion of Dr. Morse, (and it is the only au- 
thority given for it,) that the convention of ministers ap- 
proved the project. By what majority, and with what li" 
mitations or amendments, we are not told. It would be 
very much to the discredit of the convention, if it were 
true ; and this the committee cannot deny, because they tell 
us, " the proposals were such as no congregational minis- 
" ter could consistently recommend." This is no great 
praise to that convention. 

6 



42 

But as one hundred years have elapsed, and Dr. Ma- 
ther's project has slept as soundly as himself, it became ne- 
cessary to account for this silence, and thus it is feebly and 
haltingly admitted by the committee, " that there were 
" some considerable persons among the ministers, and the 
" laity, who thought the liberties of 'particular churches to 
" be endangered by them. In deference to these, the pro- 
" posals were never prosecuted beyond the bounds of mere 
" proposals." In other words, they died a natural death. 
They were rejected with indignation by the clergy and 
laity, in 1706. This fact we have from Dr. Cotton Ma- 
ther himself, in a work published twenty years afterwards. 

What does this ancient precedent prove? That some men 
had the temerity to propose the abolition, (for it was such in 
effect) of the congregational form of government, and that 
it was rejected as fatal to the liberties of the church. 

But never was any body of men so unfortunate in the 
choice of a committee, as our association. Not content 
with bringing forward a case, which, as far as it has any 
authority, goes to the destruction of their own principles, 
they make the most dreadful mistakes in the management 
of this unlucky case. In page 360 of the Panoplist, vol. xi. 
they say, " that the proposals of Dr. Mather are in various 
" respects such, as that in their opinion, congregational mi- 
" nisters cannot consistently recommend or approve them." 

This would seem to a layman, to be a coup de grace, a 
fatal blow both to Dr. Mather, and the convention which 
adopted his plan. It is to be regretted, that the committee 
had not stated the parts of Dr. Mather's project, which ap- 
peared to them so exceptionable ; perhaps we should have 
deemed them the most meritorious. 

But it is singular, we must all confess, that so much defe- 
rence should be paid to a project, which the committee are 
constrained to censure in such severe terms. 



43 

In the next page the committee say, that they cannot de- 
termine on what grounds (he proposals were rejected, 
and seem rather to be surprised at their hard fate. This is 
b little strange, and somewhat contradictory in the view 
of a layman. 

It would occur to us as probable, that some " of the va- 
" rious objections which rendered it impossible for a con- 
" gregational minister either to recommend or approve 
" them," might be presumed to have occasioned their 
failure. 

Now we appeal to all rational men, and request them to 
ask themselves, why this plan of Dr. Cotlon Mather, so 
treated by the people in his own age, utterly neglected 
since, and finally so condemned by this committee, should 
be made the chief foundation for this new experiment, and 
should occupy two thirds of their report ? Surelv the com- 
mittee will experience the fate denounced on those who 
build their houses on the sand. It is, in brief, presumed by 
the committee, that a project which had no countenance in 
the age in which it was produced, nor with the many ge- 
nerations which have succeeded it, will acquire an impor- 
tance and influence from its antiquity, which its merit could 
not secure for it, and that we shall be disposed to adopt 
a plan of ecclesiastical tyranny, which our ancestors reject- 
ed with disdain. 

The arguments of the committee, independent of Dr. 
Mather's rejected authority, may be divided into three 
classes, all of which we shall minutely consider. 

1st. " General, loose, declamatory assumptions, or as- 
" sections, vague, indefinite, and in many cases incompre- 
" hensible." In other terms, Panoplist language and 
argument. 

2d. Three specifick objections to the present plan of 
church government. 



44 

3dly. Scriptural arguments, taken from Dr. Increase* 
Blather's Ratio Discipline. 

As to the first, " The loose, declamatory assertions.'' 

They are of the character of those which follow. " That 
" there is a visible decline in the order, discipline, md 
" fruitfulness of the churches." This complaint, they ad- 
mit, was the prevailing one also in 1706, one hundred and 
ten years since, and has been the prevailing one with cer- 
tain men, in all ages of the church. It is like the usual 
complaint against the seasons, the scarcity of money, and 
the general profligacy of the age in which we live. What 
peculiar evidence, or proofs the committee have on this 
point, we know not. We are persuaded of the contrary. 
This part of our country is unquestionably as correct in its 
morals, more disposed to support publick worship, and as 
well inclined to attend the exercises of religion, to respect 
and honour its ministers, and to promote all publick institu- 
tions for the advancement and spread of Christianity, as it 
has been in any former age. 

The clergy are much more learned and respected than 
they were a century ago. The affectation of external 
sanctity has, it is true, given place to more natural and 
less pharisaical and assuming manners. Men think they 
can be pious without being hypocritical. 

There is, in short, all the difference between this coun- 
try now and at that period, that will be found in Great 
Britain, between that nation under Praise God Barebones' 
Parliament, and that same people printing and dispersing as 
they now do, the Holy Scriptures in one Hundred Tongues. 
Then to be sure, a Surplice was a subject of Honour, and 
a Form of Prayer, a Liturgy, "a damned work of Satan." 
Now we see a churchman and dissenter, an archbishop and 
ruling elder, combining their efforts, without dissensions or 

* Should be Cotton Mather. 



45 

difficulties, to spread the glad tidings of the Gospel 
throughout the habitable globe. 

The second general complaint is, 

" That in the introduction, discipline, and dismission of 
ministers, the Churches are left each to its own discretion, 
without any acknowledged uniform rule to govern them." 

And pray is this an evil 1 Is it unreasonable, that those 
who support^and are bound to hear a preacher, should have 
a voice, and the only voice in introducing him? Is it just 
cause of complaint, that those who look up to their pastor 
as the greatest earthly blessing, who wait anxiously for him 
to soothe their sorrows, and strengthen their hearts on the 
bed of sickness, who look up to him as the guide of them- 
selves and their children, in the narrow path to heaven — 
ought it to be a subject of complaint, that such a man, who 
is to be united to them for life, should be the object of their 
choice, and that their preference should not be disturbed 
by some rival priests, who should insist upon his subscrib- 
ing to their articles of faith ? 

Yet this is one of the main articles of complaint. It is 
as unreasonable and preposterous, as if these gentlemen 
should assume to the Church the power of deciding who 
should or should not intermarry in private life. 

The power thus claimed by Dr. Morse of interfering, 
either with the settlement or dismision of a minister, we have 
shewn in our first chapter, was not suggested in the Apos- 
tolick age, and in the second, we made it equally apparent, 
that such a power was rejected and denied by the Congre- 
gational Churches. 

The Committee then call the attention of the pubJick 
most solemnly "to the evils which affect Churches and 
ministers in their publick character and in their relation 
to each other." 

As it has been seen, that in the Apostolick age there 
were no relations between one Church and another, except 



46 

those which exist between all Christians, those of kindness 
and urbanitv, we should have expected on this head to see 
some elucidation of these relations and duties, as well as 
the manner in which they had been broken and disregarded. 
We look in vain. The Consociation Cause will not admit 
of precision, or palpable and obvious facts and statements. 
We have indeed much commonplace declamation, such as, 
" that all Churches are members of one kingdom, subject 
to one king, partakers of one spirit, and enlisted in the same 
cause, and are frequently called to promote the same inter- 
est." We are even pretty audaciously, and if any other 
persons were concerned, I should say pretty impiously 
told, that the relation existing among Churches was consti- 
tuted by God himself! ! 

Let us examine this rhapsody which the Committee have 
substituted for argument. All Christendom, that is, all who 
believe in the Christian dispensation, belong to one spirilual 
kingdom, are subject to one king, and partakers of one spirit; 
Ca»bo!ick and protestant, episcopalian and dissenter, are 
equally the subjects of the foregoing remarks, unless the 
Committee contend that the Church of England, and the 
Baptists and Catholicks are not Christians, and are there- 
fore not subjects of the same king. If then these terms 
or phrases have any bearing (and they have but very little, 
for in our judgment they are mere sounds without meaning) 
but if they have any bearing, they go to prove the neces- 
sity of a perfect conformity in all sects. They draw the 
inference, that there should be but one Church, and one 
form of government for all the Christian world. 

This is precisely the Roman Caihoiick doctrine. If one 
or more churches convened as in Council, Synod or Conso- 
ciation have a right to settle matters of faith; if there be 
any human power since the Apostolick age competent to 
this, the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome are beyond all 



47 

limits of comparison the first. They have prescription and 
antiquity, and numbers on their side. They have been 
admitted by the Christian world, for six or seven times the 
number of a^es that the protestant form of religion has 
existed. There aie plausible grounds in scripture for his 
authority. There are solid ones in favour of submission 
to one despot rather than to many. The distance of his 
residence, his independence, h\r consequent impartiality, 
his freedom from those petty rivalships and personal pas- 
sions, from which the best men more nearly in contact are 
not exempt, these, and a thousand other reasons, give his 
claim a preference to those of any human tribunal. Let it 
not be pretended, that J am an advocate for the authority 
of the see of Rome. I deny all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 
I think conscientiously, that it is the most monstrous and 
wicked of all usurpations. It is sinning against all light, 
to assume the smallest control over the consciences of 
men under colour of scriptural authority. The whole 
scriptures are against it, and we shall see presently on what 
wretched foundation these pretensions repose. 

If it be said, that our ancestors, the first Independents, 
in direct opposition to their own principles, exercised a full 
share of spiritual tyranny, I answer, this is a truth ever to 
be lamented. I was never among the admirers of our fore- 
fathers without qualification. They had indeed great vir- 
tues, but they had also great defects. And there is not a 
man among those who praise them, that would exchange 
the present state of society, for that of this country in the 
first century of its settlement. 

Reformation is never perfect at once. Some of our 
•weaknesses will still adhere to us, but, blessed be the God 
of all mercy, he has permitted us to enjoy a degree of light 
and liberty which our ancestors never knew, when the true 
spirit of the first reformation, and the better and more per- 



48 

feet principles of the second, that of the Independents, are 
about to have their full operation. Such an operation they 
will have, in the entire freedom of the separate churches, 
and in an universal Catholick spirit, unless it shall be dis- 
turbed by ecclesiastical tribunals ; which have, in all ages, 
been the bane of Christianity. 

I shall now proceed to consider secondly, 

The three specifick reasons, assigned by the learned 
committee, for abolishingthe Cambridge Platform and estab- 
lishing a coercive ecclesiastical court. 

The first is, "a prevailing neglect of discipline towards 
offending members of churches, and a difficulty of going 
through a regular course of discipline when attempted." 

It is difficult to perceive, in what manner the proposed 
consociations will strengthen the power of separate churches 
over their own members. 

It is alleged, indeed, that every church to this end re- 
quires the aid of sister churches. This is broad assertion. 
The only means of discipline in the power of the church, in 
a free country, are admonition, penance, and excommuni- 
cation. These a single church can effectually exercise, or 
inflict, as well without as with the aid of associated churches. 
Indeed much better, because there is no appeal. 

Something is intimated of the delinquents obtaining sup- 
port from other churches. This also is mere declamation. 

Why state chimerical fears ? Is it a practical evil of any 
extent? Did any church ever expel a member for lewd- 
ness, or intemperance, or profanity, and has the excluded 
member been received and encouraged by a sister church ? 

We believe, and trust, never. It is a mere pretence. 
But if it be intended, as it would seem, to erect these con- 
sociations to try the lay brethren who offend, if they are to 
examine into and decide spiritual offences, they will have 
labour and reward enough. 



49 

Connecticut will find a new and profitable employment 
for her numerous sons, and we shall be thronged with a host 
of Iheological lawyers, eager to prove their zeal and inge- 
nuity against the reprobate citizens of Massachusetts. 

This is no sneer. It is sober conviction. When we 
see it gravely and seriously urged, that the churches have 
not sufficient power to enforce ecclesiastical discipline, that 
a great and general court of ministers must be called to try 
laymen, and to punish them for heresies and other sins, we 
own we should shudder, if we did not believe, that the good 
sense and temper of our people would induce them to spurn 
at such a suggestion. Yet such an one is made, as will be 
seen by the prefixed report. ' 

The second specifick objection to the old Platform is, 
"that there is no regular and acknowledged method in which 
Congregational churches can exercise a christian watch and 
care over each other." 

"A Christian church, it is added, may apostat ise from 
the common faith, and fall into disorders totally incompati- 
ble with the christian character." 

Now this is very plausible to vulgar ears, but what does 
it mean ? Is there any standard to decide who does apos- 
tatise ? What is the common faith? Is it the faith of Ro- 
man Catholicks, or of Lutherans, or Calvinists, or Indepen- 
dents, or Methodists, or Baptists ? 

And who is to decide when a whole church has aposta- 
tized ? And what the effect of such a decision ? Who has 
the keys of heaven, now they are wrested from St. Peter ? 
In what part of scripture is this power given to Dr. Morse's 
consociated churches, or any other self-formed ecclesiasti- 
cal tribunal ? 

Let these gentlemen shew us one instance of consociation 
in the scriptures. We shall prove hereafter there are none. 
7 



50 

Suppose this plan in operation. A ease of alleged 
heresy is brought before this august tribunal. The mem- 
bers are precisely divided. Which side is right ? Is the 
truth in doubt? What is the remedy ? Call in one or two 
other consociations, say the committee ; that is, multiply 
the means of confusion and discord, and you will obtain 
peace and truth. The new body is torn by like dissen- 
sions. What then are you to do ? Appeal to the Grand 
Association of Massachusetts. But suppose the Grand 
Association should decide the case, and the refractory 
church should refuse to submit, what is the next measure? 
To withhold communion. This any separate church can 
now do, and often undertakes to do, without any other 
authority, than its own natural powers and rights. 

This obliges me to notice a very extraordinary as- 
sertion of this commiUee, that for a single church to 
refuse to hold communion wilh another "is offering vio- 
lence to decorum ;" " that if a single church should refuse 
to hold fellowship, it would tend to introduce ecclesiastical 
despotism and anarchy.'' 

What ! have we forgotten the memorable case of Mr. 
Codman, a man of excellent feelings, but who has been, we 
regret to say it, induced to join this high ecclesiastical 
party? Was he guilty of "introducing despotism and anar- 
chy ?" 

That gentleman was persuaded to withhold communion 
with many associated churches, against the will of a majori- 
ty of his people. An ecclesiastical council was called. A 
full hearing was had, and all the orthodox clergy on the trial 
declared, that he had a right so to do. 

Will it be said, that refusing to exchange with his bre- 
thren of the same association was not throwing them out of 
communion ? It not only necessarily includes that power, 
but much more. It includes the right to deprive the peo- 
ple of his charge of their accustomed privileges. 



51 

Acts of fellowship of churches are, assisting in case of 
the sickness, death, or absence of a pastor, at ordinations, 
and in councils. Surely it is ludicrous to say, that you 
still hold communion and fellowship with a church, when 
you will not permit its pastor to perform the ordinary ser- 
vices of the desk, and refuse him admission to your pulpit. 

The decision of the orthodox part of the council in that 
memorable case, has proved, that the Cambridge Platform 
needs no amendment on this ground, since every pastor has 
the power against the will of his own people to withhold 
fellowship with any, and all other churches, at his pleasure. 

The third specifick objection of the committee to the old 
system of government is, 

" The want of a settled effectual method of calling minis- 
ters to account for immorality and errour, and of protecting 
them against calumny and injustice." 

This reason will be found, on examination, to be as little 
availing as either of the others. 

The only persons, who have any interest or right to call 
a pastor to account, are his own parishioners. 

It would be preposterous to suppose, that any parish 
would be so corrupt as to retain a clergyman notoribus for 
his immorality. If such a case could be supposed, any 
church, in connexion with such a reprobate society, would 
be fully justified in withdrawing from any communion with 
it. As to errours, if they are such as to give offence to his 
own flock, there is now a competent remedy. 

The parties aggrieved have a right to insist on a mutual 
council. If the members of such council are divided, the 
equitable presumption is, that it is no errour ; or if any, 
of an immaterial nature. 

If either party refuses to unite in a council, the party 
complaining has aright to call an ex parte council, the result 
of which is so far obligatory, that the party who conceives 



52 

itself benefited by it, may legally act in conformity to it, 
and will be upheld by the courts of law. 

But the learned committee, aware of the perfect nature 
of the present remedy, have endeavoured to render mutual 
councils, and the present mode of trial, odious and con- 
temptible. 

"We have," say they, "no effectual mode of keeping 
improper men out of the ministry." This is a departure 
from the question, which was, not whether improper men 
could be kept out, but whether they could be punished 
after they were admitted. But this complaint is as idle as 
the other. No man, by the platform, can be ordained with- 
out the approbation of a council. It is true, the parish set- 
tling a minister, may send to whatever churches it chooses. 
But is not this a natural privilege, and are not the powers 
and rights of all churches, once regularly gathered, equal f 

But, says Dr. Morse, " the friends of ecclesiastical order 
are often in the minority at ordinations, what can they then 
do V* So- it would seem that the minority are to govern, 
provided they are the true saints. " What influence," the 
committee dolefully inquire, " what influence can they 
have in an ordaining council, when there is a majority de- 
termined to outvote them?" 

We answer, the same which the minority always have in 
civil affairs. They must submit and be modest enough to 
wait until the minds of men shall change. This, the com- 
mittee will not do. It would seem therefore, that this pro- 
ject is to give the minority, in certain districts, a right to 
control the majority. This is indeed either an ingenuous 
or unguarded confession, fully displaying the extent and 
objects of this project. 

Let us now hear the legal objections to the present ad- 
mirable system of mutual councils. 

The committee premise, "that no objection can arise in 
their view to the grand principle of mutual councils, of 



53 

the justice and importance of that principle they are fully 

convinced. " 

This appears to us one of those extraordinary subtleties, 

which ought to have vanished with the pupils at St. Oiners. 
To be in favour of a " Grand principle, and convinced of 

its justice and importance," and yet proceed to decry it as 

absurd, irrelevant, weak, and ridiculous, is what a layman 

cannot comprehend. 

It is not to mutual councils, say the committee, we ob- 
ject, but to the mode of constituting them ! Now the mode 
of constituting them is what renders them mutual, and con- 
tains their only merit. 

We beg the reader not to laugh indiscreetly, when we 
state the mode in which mutual councils are proposed to be 
improved. 

The consociation is, by a standing covenant, which may 
endure for several centuries, to be constituted the council, 
and is therefore to be called mutual ! J Thus, according to 
the same reasoning, the Supreme Court is a mutual tribunal, 
though one party is always forced there against his consent, 
it is an arbitration, because by the compact, called the 
constitution, that tribunal was provided, and therefore the 
Judges are mutually chosen! To such subtleties do these 
gentlemen descend. 

Our notions of mutual councils are very different; they 
are in effect references or arbitrations. Their merit or value 
consists in their having the direct confidence and assent of 
the parties. If, in questions of property, references are 
sometimes liable to objections, they seem, in ecclesiastical 
affairs, to be the only remedy which the principles of our 
religion admit. They are a peace-making tribunal in their 
character. Theology, and religious controversies, which 
seem to repel forensick accuracy, require a more popular 
mode of decision ; it is therefore highly proper that friends 
should be called in to heal the breach without scandal to 



51 

the church. The objections to them, urged by the cool 
mittee, are derogatory to our clergy. They would prove, 
that the ministers of religion are at this day as violent, as 
unjust, as partial, as they were in the worst ages of the 
church, or as the worst men in society: that they will 
sacrifice their consciences and their God to their party 
views. Heaven forbid, that Dr. Morse's picture of them 
should bear any resemblance to the original. We think it 
a calumny, and we fully believe, that in mutual councils 
most clergymen will dare to be honest in spite oi the 
strongest of all prejudices, those of religious sects. 

But our principal reply to this objection is, In what man- 
ner will consociations remedy this evil? Will there be no 
party or sectarian prejudices within those tribunals? Will 
the same class of men, who are represented as so partial in 
mutual councils, become perfectly fair as soon as they are 
convened in consociations ? 

Or — (for here we probe this gangrened wound to the 
bottom,) — is it expected and intended, that the consocia- 
tions shall consist only of men of one mode of thinking ? 
The whole argument of the committee proceeds on this 
presumption. 

The first specifick objection to mutual councils, which 
the committee urge, is, " that they are not permanent 
bodies." This is their excellence. Referees are not per- 
manent bodies, but they are the only fit tribunal for all cases 
affecting honour, character, conscience, and which involve 
those equitable considerations which the law cannot reach. 
Make an ecclesiastical tribunal permanent, and all history 
assures us, that whether it be a college of cardinals, or a 
kirk, a court of high commission, or an apostolick office, 
an inquisition or a presbytery, it will be a despotism. 

The reason is very simple. The codes and rules of such 
tribunals must be so vague, they must depend so much on 
that erring guide, the conscience ; are capable of so little 



55 

precision, and withal have so powerful, yet deceptive a 
pretext for zeal, as the promotion of the mil of God, which 
every zealot construes to be his own will, that they always 
have, and always must, terminate in tyranny. Heaven for- 
bid, that we should any of us, live to see the day in which 
the Reverend author of this report, or any other Reverend 
Doctor should be promoted to a permanent seat in a per- 
manent body, with the powers they propose to assume, to 
wit, " To exercise stated and continued inspection over 
ministers and churches, to prevent ordination when they see 
fit, to bring lay brethren to account, and to try, depose and 
for ever disqualify ministers whom they may decide to be 
offenders in morals or faith." 

This is all — ! ! my brethren, and it does not much ex- 
ceed the enormous powers claimed by the worst ecclesiasti- 
cal tyrants which the dark ages produced- — ■ 

The second alleged objection against mutual councils is, 
" that they may be evaded by the offender's refusal to join 
in the choice of them or to submit to their decisions." 

This is partly evasive and partly untrue. If an offender 
refuses to join in choosing a mutual council, the remedy by 
ex parte council is open and perfect. This portion of the 
objection is therefore evasive. 

If he does join in choosing a mutual council, it is untrue 
that he can successfully resist its decisions. The other 
party can force him to submit to them, if such other party 
be a parish, by dismissing the pastor ; if a pastor, by suing 
for and recovering his salary. 

3d. Objection. " Mutual councils," say the committee, 
"have no code to govern their proceedings." Nor have 
referees ; yet the latter mode of trial has existed for a 
thousand years, and is still a favourite one. But what oc- 
casion is there for codes and rules and legal forms, when 
six or eight clergymen assemble to heal a breach in the 
church of Christ ? Did St. Paul send any code of rules to 



56 

the Romans or Corinthians, or is there any pretence that 
there were proctors, or doctors, or any canon law among 
the early churches ? We know there were none. 

Fourthly. It is objected, that " Mutual councils may be 
multiplied without number." We have only to say, this is 
not the fact. If they may sometimes be divided, so too 
may a jury, so will be often this proposed sovereign remedy, 
the Consociations, if they are fairly and honourably com- 
posed. It is impossible men should always agree on reli- 
gious subjects, unless it shall please God to shower down 
more of his gracious spirit than any divines now possess. 
There are now probably several hundred open avowed sects, 
and several thousand various and discordant opinions. 

Lastly, It is objected, that "mutual councils are consti- 
tuted in a manner unfavourable to impartiality, to unanimity 
and justice, and not calculated to give satisfaction to the 
parlies." 

We admit they are unfavourable to unanimity, and while 
christians see but as through a glass darkly, this is an ex- 
cellence ; for there never can be unanimity in our present 
state of knowledge, without improper coercion. As to jus- 
tice and impartiality, we think the old councils are calculated 
to be the fairest possible tribunals. 

With regard to their tendency to give satisfaction, we 
doubt whether if the offender should concur with the conso- 
ciation in doctrine, the parish who should complain would 
be better satisfied with the new tribunals than with murual 
councils. If for example, Dr. Morse's parish should gather 
sufficient courage to insist on his doing justice to Miss 
Adams, or should complain of his occupations in book- 
making, and creed-making, as inconsistent with his parochial 
duties, we doubt whether they would be better satisfied to 
submit the case to an orthodox consociation, than to have a 
voice in the choice of judges. 



57 

In a word, we admit that the consociation would be more 
uniform, more vigilant, more severe ; we have no doubt 
they would have code upon code so voluminous, that none 
but the adepts could understand them ; but as to justice 
and impartiality, ihey would never be considered as wel- 
come guests, whenever sectarian- questions and prejudices 
should interfere. While we have no doubt, that Channing 
and Thacher, cum mult is aliis, would be struck off the list 
of christian pastors as " corrupt and heretical," Dr. Morse, 
upon complaint, would be acquitted of all censure, and it 
would be decided, that his conduct to Miss Adams had been 
marked by christian charity and tenderness, that his re- 
fusal to abide by the award of referees had been dictated 
by justice and honour, that his character was truly aposto- 
lick, and that they hoped he would inherit a crown of glory, 
and take his seat between St. Peter and Si. Paul. 

It is on this subject, that the committee of the grand as- 
sociation undertake 1o run a parallel between the proceed- 
ings at common law, and those under the canon law in this 
state. They say the evil in the churches is as great under 
the Cambridge Platform, as it would be in society if the 
courts of law were like mutual councils, temporary bodies. 
They ask " what mischiefs would ensue if the criminal in 
common life had the right to choose his judges?" And is 
it come to this? Is it avowed by these reverend divines, 
that ministers are to be put on a fooling wilh cut throats 
and pickpockels, and shoplifters ? Are ecclesiastical of- 
fences of the same deep moral dye as those which courts of 
criminal jurisdiction are empowered to restrain and punish? 
Are any of our clergy charged with such enormous crimes? 
It is new to us. 

If not, if the offences charged on them are only er- 
rours, however great, errours only in opinion, is there not a 
material distinction in the nature of the offence and the 
urgency of the remedy ? 

8 



58 

The parallel is a strange and illiberal one. In what re- 
spect will the consociations resemble the supreme judicial 
court? How will they remedy the present defects ? Are 
they, like the courts of law, appointed by one head ? Are 
they independent in their salaries and in their tenure of of- 
fice ? Not so. — They are the mere creatures of the choice 
of every parish, however ignorant or well informed, and are 
often chosen by small majorities. 

No, if we must alter the Platform in order to accommo- 
date these gentlemen with a permanent and stable body 
like the courts of law, let us render the resemblance per- 
fect — let us have some tolerable security and chance of 
talents and impartiality. Let us have a court for ecclesi- 
astical cases, composed of three laymen and two clerks. 
Let them be appointed by the executive, and removeable on 
address of the Legislature. But to give Mr. Codman's little 
parish an equal voice in deciding upon Mr. Cbanning's or- 
thodoxy with bis own, which is three times as large, is pre- 
posterous, unequal, and of course, unjust. Yet such is the 
scheme recommended for our adoption. 

Let us now consider the third ground taken by the com- 
mittee, in favour of these consociations or ecclesiastical 
courts, which is the authority of Scripture. Though a 
layman, I presume I can read and judge of the meaning of a 
plain test as well as another. 

Surely if consociations and ecclesiastical tribunals were 
intended to be established by Christ or his apostles, they 
would have been directed in plain terras, subject to no cavil ; 
and if the committee have cited no texts but such as are 
equivocal, it is a proof, that they are attempting to wrest the 
scriptures to the furtherance of their own views. 

The first proposition is " that each church hath within 
itself full power to administer all the ordinances, and is not 
under any ecclesiastical jurisdiction whatever." 



59 



These are the words of the committee. We agree to it. 
It is the very corner-stone of Congregationalism; but how 
it could be cited in favour of a most enormous ecclesiastical 
usurpation, we cannot conceive. 

Secondly. It is asserted, that " Churches do stand in a 
sisterly relation to each other, being united in the same 
faith and order." This is not denied. They owe each 
other assistance in calamity, in case of sickness or death of 
the pastor, in exchanging labours of love; at ordinations* 
dedications, and other like cases. But does it result from 
this that they have any judicial authority over each other* 
and if so, to what extent? The only texts cited are, 

Ephesians, iv. 5. There is "one Lord, one faith, one 
baptism." This gives no authority. If it does, it goes to 
support the Church of Rome in obliging all churches to 
conform to her faith, a faith that has fifteen huudred years 
support, and has been embraced by three fourths of all 
Christendom. If you dissent from her "one faith" it 
must be on the ground, that though in truth there can be 
but one faith, yet each separate church must decide for 
itself what that faith is. There is no middle course. 

The second text is Philippians, iii. 16.* "Let us walk 
by the same rule, let us mind the same thing." Where 
so little attention is paid to accuracy, it is perhaps useless to 
remark, that Griesbach has rejected from this text the 
words " Rule," and some others in this passage. If, how- 
ever, the received text be admitted, it must mean, Let us 
walk by the rule of the gospel. Churches should endeavour 
to agree in this rule, but it can never be intended that the 

* PhilippiaDS, iii. 16. Griesbach rejects from the text xavovl, to <xi/t» 
<j>gov«v. The improved Version translates it, " However, as far as we 
have reached, let us walk therein." 



60 

majority should settle definitively what that rule is. If they 
can, the reformation was an unjustifiable, unscriptural, wick- 
ed thing. If any number of churches can settle the rule, 
then the Roman Catholick, the oldest and most numerous, 
had a right to fix the creed for all the christian world. 

The next text is Ephesians, iv. 11 and 13. "And he 
gave some prophets, some apostles, and some evangelists' 
and some pastors and teachers." — " Till we all come in the 
unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God 
unlo a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the 
fulness of Chris*." 

What man in his sober senses, not intent on building up 
a system, can see a foundation for consociations with power 
to settle the faith, accept, admit, sustain and depose pastors 
in all this passage? Surely it is not pretended, that the 
Consociators are apostles or prophets. What is their au- 
thority then from this iext'? The thirteenth verse relates 
no' 'O the churches, but to the great body of the disciples. 
They are said to come, or a wish is expressed, that they 
may come, to unity of faith. But there is no intimation, 
that even the evangelists or apostles had authority to settle 
that faith for the whole church, in any other way, than by 
respectful advice, and interpretation. Indeed it will appear, 
that each of the apostles settled the faith for himself, with- 
out reference to any common standard. 
The third proposition of the committee is, " that commun- 
is of churches is the faithful improvement of the gifts 
of Christ bestowed on them for his service and glory." — 
Nobody disputes this. It is therefore useless to examine 
the quotations. The question is still open, to what extent 
does this communion reach, and what are the authorities 
of the united body ? 

The fourth proposition is " Acts of communion are such 
as these." 



61 

1st. " Hearty prayer and care for one another. " As to 
prayer, this is conceded ; but as to care, if it be meant care 
of their souls, and regulation of each others' faith, we deny 
it, and proceed to examine the pretended authority for it. 

2 Corinthians xi. 28. " Besides those things which are 
without, that which couielh on me daily, the care of all 
the churches." 

There are the words of St. Paul, when enumerating his 
labours and sufferings for the cause of Christ. He was an 
apostle sent to preach the gospel by Christ himself, con- 
verted to the christian faith by a miracle, endued with su- 
pernatural gifts, able therefore to guide the consciences of 
all christians. Noiv if this Committee have these gifts, 
perhaps they maybe entitled to the care of all the churches. 
But it is as absurd, to infer from the authority delegated to, 
or exercised by St. Paul, that the same powers have de- 
volved upon the Middlesex or Norfolk clergy, as it would 
be, that because the Apostles raised men fiom the dead, 
they also could do the same. 

The next quotation is still more absurd, 1. Rom. i. 9.* 
" For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the 
gospel of his son, that without ceasing I make mention of 
you always in my prayers." This was also the language of 
the same apostle, but there is not a colour of foundation 
for an ecclesiastical tribunal in these words, and I doubt 
whether these orthodox gentlemen perform honestly, what 
the apostle conscientiously did, whether they are always 
mindful of us hereticks in their prayers. At any rate let 
thern confine themselves to that exercise, which we ad- 
mit is both lawful and expedient. 

The 2nd duty or act of communion is ,to " afford relief 
by communion of temporal and spiritual necessities." 

* See Archbishop Newcome's translation of Rom. i. 9. in the Improv- 
ed Version. 



62 

As to temporal necessities, we are all agreed, that they 
ought to be relieved, and so also spiritual wants, so far as 
we have above defined them, the obligation to relieve them 
is unquestionable. 

We doubt however whether it be a christian duty to call 
abrother a heretick, or to judge him without reason. 

The citation from Romans xv. 26 27, * relates only to 
pecuniary aid. That from Acts xi. 2*2, 26. merely shews 
that when those who had been dispersed and scattered by 
persecution began to assemble, the Christians at Jerusalem 
sent a missionary to comfort and confirm them. 

The quotation from £2 Corinthians viii. 1,4, 14. relates 
solely to the pecuniary assistance furnished to the bre- 
thren at Jerusalem by the church of Macedonia. 

The 3d act of communion is alleged to be " to maintain 
unity and peace by giving an account one to another of 
their publick actions." 

This authority, if founded in scripture, would certainly go 
very far to maintain the right claimed by this committee > 
but it is truly painful to see clergymen thus distort and 
misrepresent the holy scriptures. 

No where is this duty of giving an account to any body, 
as to a superiour tribunal, enforced in the sacred writings. 

Many acts of fellowship, which were both expedient and 
necessary in the early ages of the church, have long since 
ceased to be so. 

The Church was then encompassed with enemies : It 
was shaken by persecution. The closest bonds of union 
were necessary. These motives have now ceased to ex- 
ist. Let us examine the only authority for this accounta- 
bility of one church to another as to its publick actions. 

* The Jews having made the Gentiles " partakers of spiritual things" 
refers to the " oracles of God" having been preserved by the for- 
mer, &c. &c. 



63 

It is taken from Acts xi. 2, 4, 18. The case was sim- 
ply this. The Jewish christians were offended with Peter 
for associating with, and preaching to the Gentiles. They 
called him to account for it. Peter, unwilling to lose his 
influence with the Jews, and wishing to quiet their tender 
consciences, gave them a history of his miraculous vision, 
and of the command he had received to preach to the Gen- 
tiles. But did Peter admit the right of the Church to call 
him to an account ? Does this case prove the expediency of 
such an interference ? It is a most unfortunate example for 
the Consociation ; for in that case the whole church at Je- 
rusalem, probably as competent as the Massachusetts Gen- 
eral Association, did undertake to call an apostle to account, 
when they were clearly in the wrong themselves. This 
shews the danger and presumption of the interference of 
fallible men in matters of this nature. That they cannot 
comprehend the whole counsel of God, and ought not to 
judge each other. Was Peter right in preaching to the 
Gentiles ? Then the church were wrong in calling him to 
account. Peter, it is true, gave them satisfaction, not as a 
matter of right but of expedience. 

How dangerous would be this power in a church not bet- 
ter informed than the first church at Jerusalem, when we 
have no longer an apostle to correct their mistakes ! ! ! 

I have thus shewn, by a very brief analysis, on what slen- 
der grounds reposes this assumed authority of judging the 
Churches. I could extend the same inquiry to the few re- 
maining texts, but I trust I have done enough, by produc- 
ing the most prominent. There is no middle course, as I 
have already had occasion to remark, between the admis- 
sion of the full extent of ecclesiastical dominion claimed by 
the Romish see, and the entire liberty of each separate 
church. 



64 
CHAPTER IV. 

The real motives of the proposed change or subversion of 
the Congregational mode of government, and of the 
substitution of the Consociations in its place. 

We hare seen, that the avowed motives for such a change 
are either too loose and declamatory, or too trifling and 
unfounded to be the true ones. Yet as men do not em- 
bark in such attempts, which involve so much labour and 
wear of conscience, without strong inducements, it behoves 
us to inquire what these must be. 

If one was disposed to be sententious, we might say, that 
we fear that neither the love of Gocl, or of one's neighbour, 
neither a wish to promote the spread of Christianity, or a 
desire of union among the churches, were the prevailing 
motives with the prime movers of this scheme, but that 
they may be resolved into two passions, envy, and the 
love of power. 

We are happy, that this charge does not extend to many 
persons. There is no evidence that the association in gen- 
eral approve of these propositions. 

The project of the committee is a vast, and bold one. — 
It aims at the overthrow of principles and usages which 
have been settled for nearly two centuries. It is a retro- 
grade measure, from the principles of the reformation, to the 
tyrannical doctrines of the fifteenth century. It is the sig- 
nal for new, and perhaps even bloody contentions in the 
church. It is ushered in under the most unfavourable 
auspices. Never was the Church more quiet than before 
the publication of this plan. Never was an harmony more 
delightful to christians than that which lately prevailed. 
Every sect, and every christian enjoys the right in peace, 



65 

to read and interpret the scriptures, according to the light 
which God has given them. Since the apostolick age such 
a privilege has never before been enjoyed in any quarter of 
the globe. Why disturb this harmony ? Why deface and 
distort this delightful picture ? it is said that the church is 
teeming with errours and corruptions. If you listen to the 
committee, you would suppose that christian America ex- 
hibited a chaos, in which vices and errours were predomi- 
nant. But is this so ? or is it a calumny against our age and 
country ? What corrupt clergymen have been settled t 
What partial, prejudiced councils have been holden ? — 
In what instances have the doors of one church been opened 
to the outcasts of another ? It is said, incompetent men get 
into the ministry. It is supposed the committee mean into 
Congregational societies. Let us have the cases. Who 
are they, and in what parishes? Perhaps it will be seen, 
that the most able and competent men are, in the views of 
of the committee, incompetent. 

Much complaint is made too, of the decay of piety. 
This might be granted safely, without attributing it to any 
defect in the government of the Church. Morals may 
change from a thousand causes exteriour to, and foreign from 
the Church. To prove that the Church is in fault, it 
should be shewn, that there has been corruption or partial- 
ity in the Courts established by the ancient Platform, or 
that abuses remained unredressed after the most effectual 
measures had been taken to remedy them. We now chal- 
lenge the committee, Messrs. Woods, Codman, and Morse, 
to state the cases, and the parishes in which these evils have 
occurred, what measures they or others have taken to re- 
dress them, and in what instances they have proved inef- 
fectual. Upon doing this, we pledge ourselves to reply to 
the specifick cases. If they are right, we will acknowledge 
our errour ; if wrong, we will prove them so, 
9 



66 

This however, be assured, fellow-citizens, they will never 
do. The facts are against them, and they prefer to rest 
under the shelter of broad assertion. 

But why this delicacy in stating the whole truth? Why 
not avow, that the complaint is, that Mr. Burr could not com- 
pel his whole parish to hear him after he had changed his 
opinions ? 

The real difficulty is, not that the mode of trial is not a 
good one, but that it is one, which is not wholly under the 
control of these people. As the power at present is such, 
that a minority can protect themselves against an overbear- 
ing and violent majority by insisting on mutual councils, as 
this minority have dared to breathe in whispers their opin- 
ions, they must be put down. There must be but one sen- 
timent, and Dr. Morse's, and Dr. Worcester's reading must 
be the guage of that opinion. Thus, for example, Boston 
for fifty years has nourished, may I say, has honoured and 
loved and revered men whom //i^ call a sect of hereticks, its 
Chaunceys, and Mayhews, and Clarkes, and Belknaps, and 
many others enumerated in the eloquent letter of President 
Adams to Dr. Morse, and she must now be both purified 
and punished. Unhappily for the violent, these men have 
been uncommonly learned and able- Another passion has 
been excited. Those must be silenced who could not be 
answered. Hence human learning has been decried, and 
the University, the nurse of this detested literature, must 
be renderetTodious. 

The true motives of this change are to counteract those 
whom they please to call hereticks," that h, those who are 
as learned, as able, and as liberal as themselves. This, I 
presume, not an honest man of the orthodox party will deny. 
He will not, to his conscience, whatever he may say to the 
world. The means of effecting their object, is to get pos- 
session of ecclesiastical power, to coerce, intimidate, and 



67 

finally expel the minority, and thus to overawe, if not com- 
mand that citadel of learning and religion, our University, the 
best and highest object of reverence and affection in our 
country. 

If it be asked, in what manner, and by what course of 
proceedings these designs are to be accomplished, we 
answer, by the exercise of the powers granted to the pro- 
posed Consociations, so often attempted to be established 
in the early periods of our history, but as often defeated 
by the prudence and proper jealousy of the lay part of the 
community. 

If any number of churches can be persuaded to enter 
inio these consociations, they expect to fix them for ever in 
a state of thraldom. Thus, suppose Dr. Morse's, or any 
other church, could be persuaded to join this new estab- 
lishment ; upon the pastor's decease, no man can be permit- 
ted to preach in such church upon probation, unless ap- 
proved by the consociation. The people of the parish are 
to have no vote on that question in the first instance. No- 
body can be admitted into such a church, till approved by 
the consociation. 

If any number of the parishioners should know of a re- 
spectable candidate, and should insist upon hearing him 
against the will of the church, and should vote to settle 
him, the consociation to which the church has attached 
itself, may refuse him ordination. The parish will have no 
right to call in such churches as they may prefer. They 
are to be bound down for ever to the consociation as the 
superiour tribunal. 

Such we say are the objects of this new plan. It is true, 
the courts of law can, and will restrain them, but this does 
not alter the nature of the project. 



68 

In like manner, if a clergyman now settled in any church 
which may join the consociations, should in the prosecution 
of his studies change any of his opinions, with the perfect 
approbation, both of his church and people, it will be com- 
petent to any minister of the consociation to cite him as a 
criminal to answer for his heretical opinions, and upon trial 
he may be deposed from the ministerial office and dismissed 
from his parish. There are no limits prescribed to the ex- 
tent of these consociations. Wherever the liberal clergy 
are now a majority, the consociators may, by enlarging the 
limits of the consociations, outvote them, and make them a 
minority. 

Thus it would be in the power of a small majority in the 
whole state, to control and displace the minority. 

It is hoped also, that the authority and influence of these 
great consociations will, by degrees, so far overawe the 
churches which may not join them in the first instance, as 
to give them an opportunity of filling up any vacancies 
with clergymen devoted to their views. 

It is, in short, an organized, affiliated association for the 
purpose of rooting out all ministers who will not subscribe 
to the creed of the authors of this plan. 



CHAPTER V. 

What are the rights of the Members of Congregational 
Societies, as recognised by the Constitution and Judi- 
cial decisions of this State ? 

In examining this branch of the subject, it is immaterial 
what powers church members formerly usurped, or what 
authority ecclesiastical bodies anciently assumed. The 



09 

existing law must alone govern, and that law can only be 
pronounced by the highest judicial authorities. As the 
ecclesiastical power stood at the adoption of the constitu- 
tion, so it must for ever remain, until that constitution shall 
be altered or amended. 

The church is now placed, as it ought to be in all coun- 
tries, especially those which are free, in a situation distinct 
from the other members of a parish, having no authority 
over anj but its own members, possessing no voice in the 
choice or deposition of a pastor, nor any control over his 
opinions or mode of preaching, greater than other mem- 
bers of the same parish or society enjoy. 

That such is the law of the land, fully, finally and per- 
fectly settled, that the contract between a minister and his 
parish is purely civil, and that no ecclesiastical body has, 
or can have a right to interfere between them, except in 
the mode pointed out by the Cambridge Platform, will be 
abundantly proved by the following decisions of the Su- 
preme Judicial Court. 

In the case of Avery vs. Tyringham, 3 Massachusetts 
Term Reports, the main question was, whether a town could 
dismiss a clergyman, without good cause, at its pleasure. 
The court decided that it could not, and in delivering the 
opinion of the Bench, Chief Justice Parsons added, " This 
" article of the constitution (the 3d.) had without doubt 
" made some alteration in the ecclesiastical establishments 
" of the State. Under the colonial laws, the church mem- 
" bers in full communion had the exclusive right of elect- 
" ing and settling their minister, to whose support all the 
" inhabitants of the town were obliged to contribute. 
" Under the colony charter, no man could be a freeman 
" unless he was a church member until 1662, and a ma- 
" jority of the church constituted a majority of the legal vo- 



70 

" ters of the town. After that time, inhabitants not church 
" members, if freeholders, and having certain other quali- 
" fications, might be admitted to the rights of freemen. — 
" In consequence of this a different method of settling a 
" minister was adopted under the Provincial charter. — 
' The church made the election and sent their proceedings 
" to the town for their approbation. If the town approv- 
" ed the election, it also voted the salary and settlement. 
" When the candidate accepted, he was solemnly introduc- 
" ed to office by ordination, and became the settled minister, 
" entitled to his salary and settlement under the votes of the 
" town. 

" If the town disapproved, and the church insisted on the 
" election, it might call an ecclesiastical council, and if the 
" council approved the election, the town was obliged to 
" maintain the person chosen as the settled minister of the 
" place ; but if the council disapproved, the church must 
" have proceeded to a new election. 

" By the constitution the rights of the town are enlarge 
" ed, if it choose to exercise them, and those of the church 
" impaired. 

" If the church, when their election has been disapprov- 
" ed by the town, shall unwisely refuse to make a new elec- 
" tion, or if the town for any cause shall abandon the an- 
" cient usages of the country in settling a minister, it may, 
" without or against the consent of the church, elect a 
" publick teacher and contract to support him." 

The chief justice also, in direct contradiction to Dr. 
Morse and his committee, declared, that for immorality or 
even negligence there is now a competent remedy against 
the pastor. We have therefore the same stable and fixed tri- 
bunal in such cases, for which the committee appear to be 
so anxious, and a much more important one than that which 
they propose. He proceeds " There are also objections 



71 

Cf to a minister founded in questions of doctrine and disci- 
" pline. In all these cases, the parties, if they cannot 
" agree to dissolve the contract, may call to their assistance 
" a council mutually chosen, and their advice, technically 
" called their result, is so far of the nature of an award, 
" that either party conforming thereto will be justified. " 

This a<j;ain contradicts all the assertions and reasoning of 
the committee, as to the imperfect nature of mutual coun- 
cils. 

" If, adds the late learned Judge, in a case proper for a 
" mutual council, either party should unreasonably, or 
" without good cause, refuse their concurrence to a mutual 
" choice, the aggrieved party may choose an impartial coun- 
" cil and will be justified in conforming thereto. 

" Thus a reasonable tribunal is established to decide 
" on all cases of difficulty and controversy between a min- 
" ister and his people, a tribunal, founded in ancient usage, 
" resorted to in practice, and probably in many cases, but 
w certainly in one, in which I was council, supported by the 
" opinion of all the Judges of the Supreme Judicial Court." 
Now in whom are we to place confidence as to the Laws 
of the land, in Dr. Morse, or the judges of the highest 
Courts ot Law ? 

The former represents mutual councils as scenes of par-' 
tiality and prejudice, incompetent, inconclusive, ineffectual. 
The latter say, they are founded in ancient usage, are 
venerable and effectual in their operations and results. In 
the case of Fuller vs. Inhabitants of Princeton, this last opin- 
ion was fully established. 

In the case of Burr vs. Inhabitants of first parish in 
Sandwich, 9th Massachusetts Term Reports, the Chief 
Justice again recognizes this doctrine of the perfect compe- 
tency of councils to afford relief; and in stronger terms. 



■n 

u The Law as applicable to the question before us, is not 
" disputed by either of the parties. It is not denied, that 
" in a proper case between a minister and his parish for 
" the advice of an ecclesiastical council, if either party 
" offer to the other such a council to be mutually cho- 
" sen, and the other without sufficient cause refuse to join in 
" the choice, the party offering may choose an ecclesiastical 
" council, and the advice of the council so chosen, and act- 
" ing fairly and honestly, will justify either party in adopt- 
" ing their result." 

In the same cause, the Chief Justice said, " Our ances- 
" tors came to this country smarting from the rod of the 
" hierarchy then in power in the country from which they 
" emigrated. They were hostile to any ecclesiastical co- 
" ercive jurisdiction whatever in all matters of doctrine 
" and discipline, as repugnant to the liberties of the 
" churches ; and although synods were holden, and councils 
" of the churches convened, yet no compulsory authority 
" was vested in them : and the utility of any ecclesiastical 
" coercive power has been doubted, as tending to repress a 
"free and liberal inquiry after truth, and to substitute 

*' FOR THE ERROURS OF HERESV, SOMETIMES QUESTIONA- 

" ble, the vice of hypocrisy, always censurable. , ' > 

A more conclusive opinion on any judicial question was 
never promulgated, and surely none was ever expressed in 
language more elegant and forcible. If Chief Justice Par- 
sons had never written any opinions on other subjects, 
these alone would have rendered his memory dear to the 
friends of religious liberty. This is not extravagant, be- 
cause it is difficult to produce from any jurisprudist or phi- 
losopher opinions, more correct, or more simply and elegant- 
ly expressed. 

Such then are the existing laws of Massachusetts with 
regard to the ecclesiastical power : A system of laws and 



/3 

principles which cannot be changed without the consent of 
the whole people. From them it appears, that the whole 
and uncontrolled power of settling a minister is vested in 
the members of every parish, as distinct from the church, 
if they see fit to exercise it — That the only le \al mode of 
removing a pastor is by a mutual council, or in case of re- 
fusal of the pastor to join in it, by an ex parte council.— 
That this remedy is ancient, venerable and recognized by 
our courts of law as absolute and binding — That there can 
be no other legal or constitutional ecclesiastical tribunal 
with coercive powers ; and that in the opinion of the court, 
such a jurisdiction as Dr. Morse now sets up, would be 
opposed to the principles of our ancestors, to the usages of 
the country, and to the rights and liberties of the people. 



CONCLUSION, AND INFERENCES. 

If such be the law of Massachusetts, recognized by its 
highest judicial authority, in what manner can it be changed, 
except by an alteration of the constitution, or by the inter- 
ference of the legislature ; a mode which is itself perhaps 
questionable ? 

It would be injurious to these Reverend Gentlemen to 
presume, that they contemplate a measure, which shall 
have no other than a moral or honourable authority. It 
would be unworthy of the labour they have bestowed on it, 
if not a single order, or decree, or result, would have the 
smallest legal or practical force. This would, in fact, over- 
throw the only arguments in its favour, since the principal 
objections to our old and venerable system, consist in its 
inadequacy to effect its objects, and its want of coercive 
powers. 

10 



74 

If, therefore, our judges understand the law, it is abso- 
lutely impracticable to give tbe smallest efficacy to the new 
system of ecclesiastical dominion : certainly it is so without 
the aid of the Legislature. It is hardly to be presumed that 
the Baptists, and Quakers, and Episcopalians in that body, 
will lend their aid, in giving force, and extension, and domi- 
nion to a sect, which is now the ruling one, and whose past 
measures cannot excite in them the most perfect confidence 
in its liberality. 

Let us however, examine this question more nearly. 

Suppose tbe Grand Association, after sounding, as they 
profess to do, the sentiments of the people by this publi- 
cation, should proceed at their next general self-created as- 
sembly, to adopt Dr. Morse's report. 

Among other powers, with which the Consociations are 
vested by this project, they are substituted in the place of 
mutual councils, and all the old ecclesiastical modes of trial 
and relief are repealed. The consociations are to be em- 
powered " to hear and decide upon any complaint or alle- 
gation touching ministerial character, against any minister 
belonging to it, to acquit or find guilty, to advise and sus- 
tain Of depose, as the case may require." Now we ask, 
suppose the grand association of ministers do as they pro- 
pose, adopt this system ; will it bind their parishioners 1 
No. 

Will it bind their churches ? No. 

Will it bind even the members who are present and vote 
for it ? No. 

A bargainor contract, in derogation of natural liberty and 
the rights of conscience, is void. But admit that this salu- 
tary principle of the common law does not here apply, 
which we think it does in the greatest force, still of what use 
will your new code be, if it does not bind the parish or the 
church ? 



75 

But it will be said, we are sensible of this, and we will 
have the consent both of parish and church. 

Then you must have the unanimous consent, for it is one 
of the cases in which the majority cannot bind the minority. 
The laws of the land, and the principles of religious liberty, 
cannot be altered or abandoned, or surrendered by any ma- 
jorities. 

It is as if a parish were to vote to return to the British 
Crown, or to invite Bonaparte to accept a diadem. The 
minority could not be obliged by such votes. 

But this is not all. The majority, who should vote for it, 
would not be bound by it. They might withdraw that ap- 
probation, ad libitum* A member of a parish or church 
could not bind the purchaser of his estate or pew, neither 
could he fetter the consciences of his children. I state 
undeniable truths. Your system then, as a compact, can 
only extend to the individual who subscribes to it. 

Thus, supp6se a minister charged with heresy, and sup- 
pose both him and his church to be members of your con- 
federacy or consociation, suppose such minister deposed for 
his errours, Dr. Worcester for example ; and suppose his pa- 
rish, like Mr. Norton's of Weymouth, should agree with 
him, and should order the decree of the consociation de- 
posing their minister to be burnt by the common hangman, 
what is your remedy ? None. 

Yes. You will say, we can put the church out of com- 
munion. So you can now do, without auy consociation. 

This leads me to notice an alarming innovation in the pro- 
posed project. Under the old system, no minister could 
be brought to trial without a major vote of his own parish- 
ioners. This repressed that vile spirit of litigation and 
slander to which men are so prone. 

By the present project we perceive, that a minister may 
be accused before the consociation by any member of his 



76 

ehurcb, or by the minister of another church, even where 
his whole parish are entirely satisfied with his doc* 
tfines and conduct. A more dreadful plan for convulsing 
and tearing in pieces the church of Christ can scarcely be 
conceived. 

If then this plan can have no operation except with regard 
to the churches who may join it ; if even these churches 
can bind themselves only, and not the whole parish 
of society ; if they cannot bind even the minority of 
the church, who may dissent either at first, or at any subse- 
quent period ; if a clergyman can be settled against the 
consent of the consociations, under the authority of the old 
Platform ; if a pastor, deposed by the new consociations, 
will still retain his sacerdotal character, and can sue for and 
recover his salary, of what practical efficacy will the new 
constitution be ? That this is so, we appeal to every sound 
lawyer in the state. We invite them to examine ihe con- 
stitution,, and the decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court, 
and to say, whether any body, whether synod, council, or 
the new fangled bodiescalled consociations, or associations, 
have power to change the ecclesiastical government of the 
Congregational Churches I 

If these principles are correct, and we feel a high confi- 
dence that they are so, how are the difficulties stated by 
the committee (which, in fact, have no existence) to be 
remedied by this plan? 

It is said, in high sounding language without meaning,. 
that " the offender must stand for trial before the nhole 
church," by which is intended, I presume, the whole Con- 
gregational Church, It is not proposed, I should presume, 
to summon Mr. Channing or Dr. Porter, before Dr. Baldwin, 
Dr. Gardiner, or bishop Cheverus. 

But where is the authority for the whole Congregational 
€hurch to assemble, and settle dogmas of faith and try 



77 

hereficks ? Did they ever admit such a jurisdiction ? No. 
Their whole conduct and principles are opposed to it. 

These, however, are not the whole difficulties of the case ; 
the greatest remains 

When the churches, or any number of them, shall have 
entered into these Consociations, they may be Presbyteri- 
ans, or Episcopalians, or Consociationalists, but they will 
cease to be Congregationalists, This is no nice metaphy- 
sical distinction, it is founded on principles not to be 
refuted. 

What is Congregationalism ? What is the distinctive cha- 
racteristick of congregational churches, as opposed to other 
sects ? It consists SOLELY, I repeat it, solely in the form 
of church government, not in doctrine. The orthodox 
congregationalists agree with the church of England in all 
its articles of faith. It is only in their ideas as to the go- 
vernment of the church that they differ. 

The sect of congregationalists had scarcely an existence 
before our ancestors emigrated to America ; and we have 
shown by ample evidence, which we shall render more clear 
by our Notes, that their essential characteristiek was the 
denial of any ecclesiastical coercive power. What greater 
coercive power can there be, than that proposed by the 
committee, to prevent the election of pastors, and to depose 
a minister of Christ, against the will of his people 1 

The consociations are therefore a departure from congre~ 
gationalism. They will become a new sect. Whatever 
name they usurp, the effect will be the same. 

Every man, then, in any parish now congregational^ which 
shall vote to join, and shall join the new sect, will be ab- 
solved from his obligations to the pastor and parish. He 
can lawfully refuse to contribute to the support of the con- 
sociating sect on the plea that he is a congregationalist, and 
cannot conscientiously attend a consociating minister ; thai 



78 

he is opposed in his conscience to ecclesiastical tyranny, 
and that his money must go to the support of some congre- 
gational clergyman. 

He may join any congregational society in the stale, and 
his taxes must be paid over to such pastor of the old per- 
suasion. 

Who will deny these principles ? Will any sensible law- 
yer, or other sound layman or divine dispute them ? He 
must either deny our premises or conclusion. Will he 
question our definition of Congregationalism ? Let him find 
a better, supported by as great authorities. Will he deny 
that the Independents or congregationalists held, that each 
church had full power within itself to govern and regulate 
its affairs ? That it was accountable to no synods, councils, 
or other ecclesiastical tribunals ? 

If he admits these premises, he surely cannot deny that 
the proposed system is a direct and palpable departure from 
these principles. If so, the new consociators will constitute 
a new sect, to which the old congregationalists are no longer 
held to adhere. 

I have now closed my proposed inquiry. It would 
ill suit such a serious, argumentative essay, to attempt to 
make any appeal to the passions. If such a course had 
been proper, I am little qualified to adopt it. I have 
brought to this task only a deep and solemn conviction, I 
may say, an affecting one, that the proposed measures will 
end in the disunion of the congregational churches. 

I know the zeal with which the system is pursued, and I 
augur but little effect from my feeble exertions to stop the 
headlong current. Every effort will be made to prevent 
this essay from being read, sober and dispassionate as it is. 
But the day will assuredly arrive, when the principles laid 
down in the preceding Irquiry will be developed by abler 
men, and will be very generally admitted. 



79 

The rupture and convulsion of many parishes in which 
the clergy, who favour these violent measures, now 
feel secure ; the general disgust at such an assumption of 
power, the refusal of many individuals, in parishes where 
the majority may join the consociations, to submit to their 
authority, and the general admiration of the conduct of those 
ministers, who shall have adhered to the ancient and vene- 
rable system of religious freedom transmitted to us by our 
ancestors, will finally and inevitably produce an assent to 
the principles we have advanced, and as general a censure 
and condemnation of the few restless men, by whom these 
changes have been introduced. 

A LAYMAN. 



NOTES. 

NOTE 1st. 

AS some persons may be disposed to doubt the authority of 
Chief Justice parsons in the historical part of his opinions, be- 
cause they do not favour the views of the friends of the new sys- 
tem of ecclesiastical dominion, we have thought it best to cite 
some passages from the Rev. Wm. Hubbard's history of New r 
England, a work of the first authority, and conclusive on this 
subject; since he was cotemporary with Cotton Mather, the 
author of the famous Manuscript, was as orthodox as any man 
then or now living, and must have felt disposed to give all due 
weight to the ecclesiastical power. It will be seen that Chief 
justice Parsons drew his knowledge on this subject, in a great 
measure, from this pure orthodox source. 

It appears, that Messrs. Shelton and Higginson of Salem, 
were elected by the people and ordained by them, without the 
aid of any other Churches or Pastors. Plymouth had been in- 
vited to send messengers, but they arrived after the ordination. 
Hubbard, 119. printed copy. 

" Whatever sinister apprehensions are or ever were taken up 
about the religion of the Colony of New England, they aimed 
only at the primitive pattern described hi the word of God, and 
practice of the apostolical churches." Hubbard 181. 

We have shewn from Mosheim that there was no ecclesiastical 
authority in the apostolical churches, out of the limits of each 
separate church. 

One of the principles of church government in Massachusetts, 
according to Hubbard, was the following : 

4th. " That there is no jurisdiction to which such particular 
" churches are or ought to be subject (be it placed in classis, 
" or synod) by way of authoritative censure, or any church power, 
" extrinsical to the said churches, which they ought to have de- 
" pendence upon any other sort of men for the exercise of." 
Hubbard 184. 

In 1637 the first synod was called in New-England, not by ec- 
clesiastical but by the civil authority. It will not do to exam- 
ine its proceedings too minutely. It is certain, they have no ten- 
dency to increase our veneration for councils and synods. The 
only wise thing they appear to have said or done was" disclaim- 
ing any judicial power." " For according to the principles of 
Congregational churches, the question only is to be carried to the 
synod, but the case remains with the particular church to which 
the person is related.* 

11 



11 

** Disputes ran so high in that synod, that the magistrates 
were compelled to interfere to prevent disturbance. Some of the 
Boston members were disgusted and withdrew." Hubbard 301-2. 

" In 1642. Mr. Carter was ordained pastor of Woburn. There 
was some difference about the manner of his ordination, for, in re- 
gard they had no other officer in the church besides, nor any 
members that thought themselves fit to solemnize such an ordi- 
nance, they were advised by some, to desire the elders of other 
churches to perform it, by imoosing hands on Mr. Carter; but 
others, supposing it might be the means or occasion of introduc- 
ing the dependency of churches, &c. and so of a presbytery, were 
not so free to admit thereof, and therefore it was performed by one 
of their own members, though not so well to the satisfaction of 
some of the magistrates and ministers then present; and since that 
time it hath been more frequent to desire the elders of neighbour- 
ing churches, to ordain such, as are by the churches and people 
chosen to be their officers. Hubbard 408. 

Here we seethe extreme jealousy of our ancestors, and that 
the present usages as to ordination are only matters of courtesy ; 
being frequently submitted to in order to please some weaker 
magistrates, who could not relish scriptural simplicity. 

The next great council was the synod in 1 648. On which we 
remark : 

1. That a law was necessary to call it, no ecclesiastical pow- 
er being competent so to do. 

2. That even that synod was looked upon with a jealous eye. 
Some of the deputies or members of the General Court question- 
ed the power of the Court. " As also, because the main end was, 
for an agreement of one uniform practice in all the churches, to 
be commended to the General Court which seemed to give power 
either to the synod or the Court to compel the churches to prac- 
tice what shall be so established; but being assured that the 
synod would have no authoritative power, but the court would 
have liberty to adopt or not just as they pleased, the objections 
were withdrawn." Hubbard 533. 

" Still, many of the churches could not swallow it, because 
they feared it was the intention to have ecclesiastical laws to 
hind the church. Hubbard 534. 

3d, It must be noticed, that the proceedings of the synod were 
considered of no account, till adopted by the Legislature. 

It was this synod which framed the Cambridge Platform. It 
was duly passed into a law by the legislative adoption ; and, ac- 
cording to Hubbard, by that rule the Churches of New-England 
have ever since been ordered. This was written about forty 
years after. One of the main principles of the Platform is as 
follows : — 



iii 

"13. Particular churches, though they are distinct, and 
so have not power one over another, yet because they are united 
to Christ, not only as a mystical but a political head, they ought 
to have communion one with another by way of mutual care, 
consultation, admonition, and participation in the same ordi- 
nances." Hubbard 540. 

Not a syllable of deposition, or trial of offences committed by 
one church, by any number of churches convened.-; They never 
carried it farther than requiring the advice of mutual councils. 

"In these propositions," says Hubbard, " are summed up in 
brief the principles of the Congregational Churches of New- 
England, as to Church government ; which is the only point wherein 
they differ from the rest of the reformed churches, whether En- 
glish, Belgick or Gallick." 

See our argument on this point in the conclusion of our essay. 

In 1680, a synod again declared, that there was noshing re- 
specting doctrine, but what concerns worship and discipline, that 
caused their ancestors to remove to the deserts of America, that 
there they might have liberty to practise accordingly : " and as 
to what concerns Church Government, they refer to the platform 
of discipline agreed upon by the messengers of their churches in 
1648, solemnly owned and confirmed in the last synod." 

Hubbard, p. 623. 

This was thirty two years after the adoption of that Platform. 
They had seen its effects, were satisfied with it, and ratified it 
solemnly again. The allegations of Dr. Morse, that they were 
soon discontented with it are unfounded. There always have 
been some men, who wanted a stricter mode of discipline, but 
the Churches, in all periods, have been, and we believe still 
are, opposed to any change of the ancient Platform. 

NOTE 2d. 

The Reverend Dr. Worcester, of Salem, in his third letter to 
Mr. Channing, asserts, that Dr. Cotton Mather's proposals were 
rejected by the Committee, " that not a scrip of them was re- 
tained, and that rather than to have submitted to them, some of 
the Committee, if not the whole, would have resisted unto blood." 
It is a little singular, that proposals of so bad a character should 
have been received with so much respect; that they should have 
been introduced into the Panoplist as an " invaluable relick," 
and treated by the association with so much attention. The 
only object of using Dr. Cotton Mather's, manuscript must have 
been, to increase the evidence in favour of Consociations by the 
weight of authority. Now the authority of a man capable of 
proposing measures, which would call for "resistance unto 



IV 

blood/' appears to us to be of little weight. The same remark 
would apply to all the nine ministers who proposed the plan, and 
to the whole convention who adopted it. It is immaterial to 
w hat part of the old plan the objection now lies. If any feature 
was so odious as to require resistance, it must have been because 
it was repugnant to our rights. Any men capable of proposing 
any thing so repugnant, are not entitled to our confidence in 
such matters. But Dr. Worcester's is not a fair representation 
of the case. Our venerable fathers are very much calumniated. 
Their plan may be found in the Panoplistof July, 1815. We 
assert, without fear of refutation, that the old plan is less odious, 
more liberal, and less calculated to destroy our liberties, than the 
new one. There was no power given to the consociations in 
the former, to determine who should be settled and deposed, an 
authority expressly given in the present plan. So far from being 
wholly rejected, it is all retained and enlarged, except a single 
feature as to the associations, which was its best trait. 

The same remark may be made on the quotations from Cot- 
ton, and Hooker, and all the early fathers of New-England. 
There is not one of them who does not distinctly, in clear and 
forcible terms, condemn the principles now set up in the present 
plan, as anti-christian. When they speck of consociations, they 
did not contemplate standing judiciary councils. They expli- 
citly repel the idea. We beg our readers to consult the passages 
as we have done, and judge between us. 

But the conclusive answer to all these cases, and one which 
might have superseded all others, is ; To what does an authority 
of this sort amount, which appears to have had no influence on 
the age in which it was produced, nor in the many generations 
which have followed? From 1646 to 1706, there were some 
very active men who tried to enlarge the ecclesiastical power. 
At one time they pressed a synod, as in 1662, into their ser- 
vice — at another, the Convention. But they never had influence 
enough to procure the adoption of their plan by a single church. 
The efforts of Mr. Wise, of Ipswich, defeated them with the peo- 
ple. They never dared to publish the doings of the convention, 
and we are indebted to Mr. Wise for a knowledge of them. A 
whole century has since elapsed, and they are now brought out of 
their retirement, like the relicks of some saint, which the Catho- 
licks often fancy emit a grateful odour. Yet, even now, Dr. 
Worcester tells us that he would, like Mr. Wise, " resist it unto 
blood."' So much for the main authority of Dr. Morse. 



NOTE 3d. 

While Massachusetts, in 1706, indignantly and wisely spurned 
the ecclesiastical fetters which had been forged for her, Connec- 
ticut proved more submissive. Cotton Mather's plan was adop- 
ted at Say brook. But that plan, as I have stated, did not, like 
Morse's, authorize consociations to interfere in the ordination of 
ministers. Not a sentence referred to it. Those ceremonies 
were accordingly conducted, as before, on the old Congregation- 
al plan, by calling in the neighbouring churches. Matters went 
on quietly in this way for fifty years. Now mark the inevitable 
progress of usurpation ! In the year 1 758 the town of Walling- 
ford, in New-Haven county, elected the Rev. James Dana 
their minister. The neighbouring churches were called in to 
ordain him as usual. But a few very turbulent men in the parish 
appealed to the Consociation, and charged Dr. Dana with the 
heresy of Arminianism. It was a new case. There was no 
precedent, and no law for the consociation. But when did men 
ever refuse to exercise power when invited ? They cited the 
parish and Pastor as culprits. They forbade ordination. The 
town despised them as usurpers, and proceeded. The consocia- 
tion then deposed Dr. Dana from the ministry, and excommuni- 
cated the church. This would have been pretty well for Hilde- 
brand himself. But they distanced the Pontiff. They declared 
the venerable ordaining council, who adhered to publick liberty 
and law, disorderly persons. All these proceedings were in op- 
position to the Platform which gave them existence. The town 
however knew its rights. Dr. Dana continued to act, and the 
Consociation was ridiculed and despised. But mark the result. 
What was impudent assumption in 1 758, has now become law 
by usurpation. The Consociation has reduced all the people and 
all the churches of Connecticut to the worst of all servitudes ; 
for a church can neither ordain nor retain a beloved Pastor 
against the will of these usurping consociations. The limits of 
these notes, too extended already, will not permit me to enlarge 
on this case. 

The curious may see it ably displayed in sundry pamphlets 
by Jonathan Todd> and William Hart, 1759, and R. Wolcott, 
1760, which may be found in the Boston Athenaeum, and proba- 
bly at Cambridge. 

I must, however, cite one or two passages from one of them, 
which having been written nearer the age of the attempted usur- 
pation in 1706, is entitled to more credit than even Dr. Morse. 
" You," says this writer, (addressing one of the usurping Priests 
of that day,) " You say, that the churches are sick of their Plat- 
" form, and that several memorials have been presented to the 



VI 

" General Court of Massachusetts, praying tor a synod to pro- 
" mote that so much desired plau of Consociations. If you had 
" informed us, that the churches in that Province had presented 
" these memorials, it would have been to your purpose ; but you 
" are too wise to tell us who presented (hem. However, Mr. 
Ci Wise has told us. It was a set of ambitious clergymen, that 
" had conspired to betray the liberties of the churches, for which 
" he calls them trailers." See Wolcott, page 9, printed in Bos- 
ton, 17 GO. 

So it would seem, lhat ambition and a desire to betray the 
liberties of the churches are not of recent growth only. The 
same writer says. " The Congregational platform allows the 
" churches to choose a council known to them to be wise and 
"just. This, your scheme, denies and subjects them wholly to 
" the Consociation. It is certainly a greater privilege to ask 
" council of men wise and friendly, than to be bound to men in 
" an endless succession in some post, whom we know not, and 
" cannot depend upon. Cranmer and Ridley, two good bishops, 
"were succeeded by Gardiner and Bonner, two monsters ; and 
" what has been, may be. There is no dispute, other bodies 
" have a right to ask counsel of men best able to direct them, 
" and why should not churches have the same V 9 

Thus we see, if there were usurpers in 1758, there were also 
champions for religious freedom. God grant the latter race may 
never be extinct ! 

NOTE 4th. 

The Ratio Discipline Fratrum Nov-Jnglonnn is a rare book. 
Whether the committee and the reviewer hoped to induce the 
publick to believe that Dr. Cotton Mather, its author, was in 
favour of their system, I cannot say. Such was the impression 
made on my mind from their partial quotations, as mutilated as 
some of the passages of scripture have been in some theological 
writings. We affirm that Dr. Mather was, on the whole, well 
satisfied with the state of the church in 1719, when he wrote 
this hook. He speaks of other people desiring a change, but he 
thought none necessary. The Committee of the Grand Associ- 
ation, for example, quote this sentence. "When councils are 
called by litigant parties in churches, it had been hitherto in the 
liberty of each party to choose and call their own councils where 
they pleased, which left room for much partiality to operate, and 
one council to succeed and oppose another with an endless con- 
fusion more proper for Babel than a city of God." So far the 
quotation, and one would infer from it, that these were his own 
opinions: far from it — he merely states the pleas of the disaf- 
fected and ambitious. He adds. " Through the blessing of God 



Ml 

their Saviour, the churches had not, in fact, seen much of ihis 
confusion, and it may be, the prudent servants of God had it 
more in fear than there was any need of." This certainly 
takes away the authority of Mather to the point of the evils ex- 
perieneedm his day, which was more than seventy years after 
the platform was adopted. In his judgment, it was idle fear, 
rather than solid reason, which led to the proposed consociations 
of which he was then treating. He adds in another page, that, 
the consociation scheme succeeded in one state (Connecticut) 
but failed in the other New-England States^ because "some con- 
" siderable persons among the ministers and brethren thought the 
" liberties ef particular churches were in danger of being limited 
" and infringed by them." So far he is quoted by the committee 
and the Panopiist reviewer, but they omit the conclusion of the 
same sentence. " Accordingly, the churches go on in the old 
" method, of which an account has been given, and human pru- 
" dence being obliged to stop where it is, the spirit of our Saviour 
" so desceuds with his operations, that councils rarely miss of 
** their desired effect." 

This was fourteen years after the scheme of tyranny of 1706 
had failed. Dr. Mather, in his preface, states five points in 
which all the New-England churches agreed. 1st. That the 
people had a right, when they pleased, to form a church. 
2d. That each church has full, entire, and independent powers 
to elect officers, &c. 3d. That Pastors, so elected, have full au- 
thority to administer sacraments, &c. 4th. That in matters of 
common concern only, which affect the tranquillity of other church- 
es, they ought to ask and pay great regard to advice. 5th. That 
the scriptures are a sufficient rule of faith, worship, and manners. 
He adds, "The Eleutherians (or friends of freedom) will con- 
sider how far any further agreement, (than in those points,) may ■ 
be necessary, and whether these unreasonable sons of Procrustes, 
the narrow souled and imperious bigots for uniformity, will do 
religion any real service by the pressing of it." In all this we 
agree with Dr. Mather. 

It is pretended both by the Committee and Reviewer, that de- 
fects in the Platform were early perceived and lamented, and you 
would infer, if you did not know these reverend combatants, that 
the church was at that early day in a dreadful state. 

Dr. Mather himself is my authority against them. His work 
was before them, and in face of it they make these assertions. 

In his Ratio Disciplined, after the platform had had a trial of 
seventy-five years, he says, " If the church refuse . to give to 
any council an account of a matter, (upon trial,) a thing that 
perhaps never happened," &c. Again ; " The church persisting 
in irregularity, they run the hazard of a proceeding, which was 
never above once come into, withdrawing communion." " He 



via 

" thanks Christ, that the end is obtained without such extremi- 
" ties." 

Where do the committee procure their facts ? Surely Hub- 
bard and the author of the Magnalia, and of the Ratio Discipline, 
must have known the disorders in the church, had they existed. 

In page 170, Dr. Mather asserts, " that the councils of New- 
" England rarely meet with contradictions from the churches 
" whose cases are submitted." " The New-England councils 
have been so regularly composed, that there has been little 
occasion for the old* complaint, omne concilium parit bellum" 
That is to say, they had done better than the eld authoritative 
councils. 

" The synods of New-England know no weapons," says Dr. 
Mather, " but those which are spiritual. They pretend to no 
juridical authority, nor any significancif but what is merely m- 
structivt and suasory." 

He adds, the churches of New-England cannot better express 
themselves than in the language of Festus Hommius. " The 
decrees of councils ought not to be propounded unto, or obtruded 
on the churches as Praetorian sayings, but they should be sent 
to the churches, that they may be examined by them according 
to the word of God, and that if they be found to agree with it, 
they may be approved." This submits the whole power to the 
churches. Let any one read the report prefixed to this essay, 
or the history of the church at Wallingford, and then say, wheth- 
er the one or the other coincide with Hommius' ideas of the 
power of councils, w hich, Mather says, expressed the sense of our 
New-England fathers. 



LEFe'10 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



